Development of a Revised Performance-Perceptual Test Using Quick Speech in Noise Test Material and Its Norms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Ou ◽  
Matthew Wetmore
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Perceptual Test ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Materials

Background: Two audiometric speech measures have been recognized to have associations with hearingaid use success: the Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) test and the Performance-Perceptual Test(PPT). The PPT involves using the same speech test material (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT]) twice, toevaluate patients’ objective and subjective speech recognition performance in noise and the discrepancybetween the two measures (Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy [PPDIS]). Using the QuickSIN to conductthe PPT (revised-PPT) may provide clinicians two pieces of important information from one test tohelp predict hearing aid use success and the need for counseling. Moreover, we could achieve the desiredclinical efficiency without purchasing additional test materials.<br />Purpose: This study aimed (1) to evaluate the validity and reliability of using the QuickSIN speech materialto administer the PPT and (2) to establish normative data across listeners with normal hearing (NH)and hearing loss (HL).<br />Research Design: This study used a repeated measures design.<br />Study Sample: Of the total 65 participants between 18 and 88 years of age, 20 (31%) had NH and 45(69%) had sensorineural HL, ranging from mild to profound in both ears. Thirty-two of the 45 participantswith HL were hearing aid users.Data Collection and Analysis: All participants completed the original PPT using HINT and the revised-PPT using QuickSIN, via sound field. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the performance,perceptual, and PPDIS data between the two test materials across all participants. Normativedata for the revised-PPT were established from all participants.<br />Results: Significant main effects for both the test material and hearing status were found for the performanceand perceptual data. All interactions were nonsignificant. There were no significant PPDISdifferences between the original PPT and the revised-PPT. Normative values for the revised-PPT wereestablished and comparable to the norms for the original PPT in the present study. The test–retest resultssuggested that the revised-PPT has good reliability. In addition, it appeared that there was a negativeassociation between underestimation of hearing ability and hearing aid use success.<br />Conclusions: It is concluded that the QuickSIN speech material can replace HINT to measure PPT. Therevised-PPT may serve as a useful and efficient clinical tool in any clinics for hearing aid fitting and counseling.<br />

scholarly journals Development of a Revised Performance-Perceptual Test Using Quick Speech in Noise Test Material and Its Norms

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (03) ◽  
pp. 176-184
Author(s):  
Hua Ou ◽  
Matthew Wetmore
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Perceptual Test ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Materials

AbstractTwo audiometric speech measures have been recognized to have associations with hearing aid use success: the Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) test and the Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT). The PPT involves using the same speech test material (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT]) twice, to evaluate patients’ objective and subjective speech recognition performance in noise and the discrepancy between the two measures (Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy [PPDIS]). Using the QuickSIN to conduct the PPT (revised-PPT) may provide clinicians two pieces of important information from one test to help predict hearing aid use success and the need for counseling. Moreover, we could achieve the desired clinical efficiency without purchasing additional test materials.This study aimed (1) to evaluate the validity and reliability of using the QuickSIN speech material to administer the PPT and (2) to establish normative data across listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing loss (HL).This study used a repeated measures design.Of the total 65 participants between 18 and 88 years of age, 20 (31%) had NH and 45 (69%) had sensorineural HL, ranging from mild to profound in both ears. Thirty-two of the 45 participants with HL were hearing aid users.All participants completed the original PPT using HINT and the revised-PPT using QuickSIN, via sound field. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the performance, perceptual, and PPDIS data between the two test materials across all participants. Normative data for the revised-PPT were established from all participants.Significant main effects for both the test material and hearing status were found for the performance and perceptual data. All interactions were nonsignificant. There were no significant PPDIS differences between the original PPT and the revised-PPT. Normative values for the revised-PPT were established and comparable to the norms for the original PPT in the present study. The test–retest results suggested that the revised-PPT has good reliability. In addition, it appeared that there was a negative association between underestimation of hearing ability and hearing aid use success.It is concluded that the QuickSIN speech material can replace HINT to measure PPT. The revised-PPT may serve as a useful and efficient clinical tool in any clinics for hearing aid fitting and counseling.

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

Evaluation of a Pinna Compensation Algorithm for Sound Localization and Speech Perception in Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Denise Keenan ◽  
Magnus Norgaard
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Pc Algorithm ◽  
Localization Performance

Purpose This study was designed to evaluate the effect of a pinna compensation (PC) algorithm on localization performance in the horizontal plane and speech intelligibility in noise. Method Nine and 18 experienced hearing aid users with bilaterally symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss participated in the localization study and the speech-in-noise study, respectively. Performance was evaluated unaided, aided with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid with an omnidirectional microphone (Omni), and aided with the same hearing aid with the PC algorithm (Omni+PC). Localization performance was measured using 12 loudspeakers spaced 30° apart on a horizontal plane. Speech-in-noise performance was measured with speech presented from 0° or 180°. A single-blinded, repeated measures design was used. Results Significant improvement in localization accuracy was found when comparing the Omni+PC condition to the Omni condition. Also, the Omni+PC condition improved the signal-to-noise ratio by 2.4 dB when compared to the Omni condition when speech was presented from the front in a diffuse noise background. Conclusion Use of the PC algorithm improved localization on the horizontal plane and speech-in-noise performance. These results support use of the PC algorithm in BTE hearing aid fittings.

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

The Effects of Receiver Placement on Probe Microphone, Performance, and Subjective Measures with Open Canal Hearing Instruments

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynzee N. Alworth ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Monika Bertges Reber ◽  
Patti M. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Subjective Measures ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing Instruments ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Occlusion Effect

Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as a way to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.

Reliability and Stability of Various Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in a Group of Elderly Hearing-Aid Wearers

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 923-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dan Halling ◽  
Maureen Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Twenty elderly persons with hearing impairment were fit with binaural in-the-ear hearing aids and followed for a 6-month period post-fit. Several hearing-aid outcome measures were obtained at 0, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days post-fit. Outcome measures included (a) objective measures of benefit obtained with nonsense-syllable materials in quiet (CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test, NST) and sentences in multitalker babble (Hearing in Noise Test, HINT); (b) two subjective measures of benefit, one derived from pre-fit/post-fit comparisons on a general scale of hearing handicap (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HHIE) and the other based on a subjective scale of post-fit hearing-aid benefit (Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI); (c) a questionnaire on hearing-aid satisfaction; (d) an objective measure of hearing-aid use; and (e) a subjective measure of hearing-aid use. Reliability and stability of each measure were examined through repeated-measures analyses of variance, a series of test-retest correlations, and, where possible, scatterplots of the scores against their corresponding 95% critical differences. Many of the measures were found to be both reliable and stable indicators of hearing-aid outcome.

Effect of Adaptive Compression and Fast-Acting WDRC Strategies on Sentence Recognition in Noise in Mandarin-Speaking Pediatric Hearing Aid Users

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (04) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Haihong Liu ◽  
Yuanhu Liu ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Xin Jin ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
T Test ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Adaptive Compression ◽  
Fast Acting

AbstractWide dynamic range compression (WDRC) has been widely used in hearing aid technology. However, several reports indicate that WDRC may improve audibility at the expense of speech intelligibility. As such, a modified amplification compression scheme, named adaptive compression, was developed. However, the effect of compression strategies on speech perception in pediatric hearing aid users has not been clearly reported.The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of adaptive compression and fast-acting WDRC processing strategies on sentence recognition in noise with Mandarin, pediatric hearing aid users.This study was set up using a double-blind, within-subject, repeated-measures design.Twenty-six children who spoke Mandarin Chinese as their primary language and had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.Sentence recognition in noise was evaluated in behind-the-ear technology with both adaptive compression processing and fast-acting WDRC processing and was selected randomly for each child. Percent correct sentence recognition in noise with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression was collected from each participant. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the effect of gender, age at assessment, and hearing threshold of the better ear on signal-to-noise ratio, and a paired-samples t test was employed to compare the performance of the adaptive compression strategy and fast-acting WDRC processing.The mean percentage correct of sentence recognition in noise with behind-the-ear technology with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression processing were 62.24% and 68.71%, respectively. The paired-samples t test showed that the performance of the adaptive compression strategy was significantly better than the fast-acting WDRC processing (t = 3.190, p = 0.004).Compared with the fast-acting WDRC, adaptive compression provided better sentence recognition in noise for Mandarin pediatric hearing aid users.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

Effects of Coordinated Compression and Pinna Compensation Features on Horizontal Localization Performance in Hearing Aid Users

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
pp. 080-092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Denise Keenan ◽  
Jennifer Schumacher
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Localization Accuracy ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Localization Performance

Background: Hearing-impaired listeners localize sounds better unaided than aided. Wide dynamic range compression circuits operating independently at each ear in bilateral fittings, and microphone positions of different hearing aid styles, have been cited as a reason. Two hearing aid features, inter-ear coordinated compression (IE) and pinna compensation (PC), were developed to mitigate the compromised aided localization performance. Purpose: This study examined the effect of IE and PC on aided localization performance in the horizontal plane with hearing-impaired listeners. Research Design: A single-blind, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: A total of 10 experienced hearing aid users with bilaterally symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss who had previously participated in localization training were evaluated. Data Collection and Analysis: Localization performance was measured using 12 loudspeakers spaced 30° apart on the horizontal plane. Aided performance was evaluated using a behind-the-ear hearing aid at four settings: omnidirectional microphone (Omni), Omni microphone with the PC feature, Omni microphone with IE, and Omni microphone with the PC feature and IE together. In addition, unaided localization performance was measured. Results: Significant improvement in the localization accuracy was measured for sounds arriving from the back when comparing the PC with the Omni conditions. The use of IE reduced the magnitude of errors for some listeners for sounds originating from ±90°. The average reduction in the errors was 7.3°. Conclusions: This study confirmed that the use of the PC feature improved localization for sounds arriving from behind the listener. The use of IE may improve localization for some listeners for sounds arriving from the sides.

scholarly journals Development and Evaluation of the Mandarin Quick Speech-in-Noise Test Materials in Mainland China

2017 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Zhou ◽  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Shuo Wang ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Dandan Ren
Keyword(s):  
Mainland China ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Materials
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document