scholarly journals A Comparison Between the Korean Digits-in-Noise Test and the Korean Speech Perception-in-Noise Test in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
Subin Kim ◽  
Sungwha You ◽  
Myoung Eun Sohn ◽  
Woojae Han ◽  
Jae-Hyun Seo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Diagnostic Efficacy ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Masker ◽  
Noise Test

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to validate the performance and diagnostic efficacy of the Korean digits-in-noise (K-DIN) test in comparison to the Korean speech perception-in-noise (K-SPIN) test, which is the representative speech-in-noise test in clinical practice.Subjects and Methods: Twenty-seven subjects (15 normal-hearing and 12 hearing-impaired listeners) participated. The recorded Korean 0-9 digits were used to form quasirandom digit triplets; 50 target digit triplets were presented at the most comfortable level of each subject while presenting speech-shaped background noise at various levels of signal-to-noise ratios (-12.5, -10, -5, or +5 dB). Subjects were then instructed to listen to both target and noise masker unilaterally and bilaterally through a headphone. K-SPIN test was also conducted using the same procedure as the K-DIN. After calculating their percent correct responses, K-DIN and K-SPIN results were compared using a Pearson-correlation test.Results: Results showed a statistically significant correlation between K-DIN and K-SPIN in all hearing conditions (left: r=0.814, p<0.001; right: r=0.788, p<0.001; bilateral: r=0.727, p<0.001). Moreover, the K-DIN test achieved better testing efficacy, shorter average listening time (5 min vs. 30 min), and easier performance of task according to participants’ qualitative reports than the K-SPIN test.Conclusions: In this study, the Korean version of digit triplet test was validated in both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The findings suggest that the K-DIN test can be used as a simple and time-efficient hearing-in-noise test in audiology clinics in Korea.

scholarly journals Training of Speech Perception in Noise in Pre-Lingual Hearing Impaired Adults With Cochlear Implants Compared With Normal Hearing Adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. e316-e325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yossi Bugannim ◽  
Daphne Ari-Even Roth ◽  
Doreen Zechoval ◽  
Liat Kishon-Rabin
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise

scholarly journals An evaluation of the speech perception in noise test

1986 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucille P. Dickens ◽  
Callum M. Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Clinical Applications ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Noise Test

The effects of presentation level and signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) on SPIN performance were investigated for eighty normal hearing listeners. Both intensity and S/B had a significant effect on scores. Performance improved at the more favourable S/B regardless of presentation level, and scores were better at the lower presentation level regardless of S/B. Possible clinical applications of the SPIN test are discussed.

scholarly journals Evaluation of speech perception in noise in Kurd-Persian bilinguals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yones Lotfi ◽  
Jamileh Chupani ◽  
Mohanna Javanbakht ◽  
Enayatollah Bakhshi
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Cognitive Factors ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Comparison Of The Results

Background and Aim: In most everyday sett­ings, speech is heard in the presence of com­peting sounds and speech perception in noise is affected by various factors, including cognitive factors. In this regard, bilingualism is a pheno­menon that changes cognitive and behavioral processes as well as the nervous system. This study aimed to evaluate speech perception in noise and compare differences in Kurd-Persian bilinguals versus Persian monolinguals. Methods: This descriptive-analytic study was performed on 92 students with normal hearing, 46 of whom were bilingual Kurd-Persian with a mean (SD) age of 22.73 (1.92) years, and 46 other Persian monolinguals with a mean (SD) age of 22.71 (2.28) years. They were examined by consonant-vowel in noise (CV in noise) test and quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS 21. Results: The comparison of the results showed differences in both tests between bilingual and monolingual subjects. In both groups, the reduc­tion of signal-to-noise ratio led to lower scores, but decrease in CV in noise test in bilinguals was less than monolinguals (p < 0.001) and in the Q-SIN test, the drop in bilinguals’ score was  more than monolinguals (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Kurd-Persian bilinguals had a bet­ter performance in CV in noise test but had a worse performance in Q-SIN test than Persian monolinguals.

Speech Recognition Abilities of Adults Using Cochlear Implants with FM Systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 678-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Linda M. Thibodeau
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Classroom Setting ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Word Repetition ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Speech recognition was evaluated for ten adults with normal hearing and eight adults with Nucleus cochlear implants (CIs) at several different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and with three frequency modulated (FM) system arrangements: desktop, body worn, and miniature direct connect. Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented with speech noise in a classroom setting and percent correct word repetition was determined. Performance was evaluated for both normal-hearing and CI participants with the desktop soundfield system. In addition, speech recognition for the CI participants was evaluated using two FM systems electrically coupled to their speech processors. When comparing the desktop sound field and the No-FM condition, only the listeners with normal hearing made significant improvements in speech recognition in noise. When comparing the performance across the three FM conditions for the CI listeners, the two electrically coupled FM systems resulted in significantly greater improvements in speech recognition in noise relative to the desktop soundfield system.

Effects of Frequency Modulation (FM) Transmitter Microphone Directivity on Speech Perception in Noise

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Nicole V. Kreisman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Wide Angle ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Noise Test

Frequency modulation (FM) technology can significantly improve the speech perception ability of individuals with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in background noise. Previous investigations have demonstrated that the microphone design of the FM transmitter can have a significant impact on this improved speech perception. The purpose of this investigation was to compare 3 types of FM transmitter microphone designs: (a) wide angle (omnidirectional microphone), which amplifies sounds coming from all directions around the microphone equally; (b) zoom (1 directional microphone), which provides less amplification to signals coming from the rear, and (c) superzoom (2 directional microphones), which provides less amplification to signals originating from the rear and the sides. Fifteen adults with bilateral slight to moderately severe SNHL participated. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994). Speech spectrum shaped noise served as the noise competition. Results revealed that the best speech perception in noise was obtained when the FM transmitter was used in the zoom setting. The poorest performance was obtained when the FM transmitter was in the wide-angle mode. The clinical implications of these results are discussed.

The Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN) in a Multiple Signal-to-Noise Ratio Paradigm

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 590-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Rachel McArdle ◽  
Kelly L. Watts ◽  
Sherri L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Better Than

Background: The Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN; Bilger, 1984b) is composed of 200 target words distributed as the last words in 200 low-predictability (LP) and 200 high-predictability (HP) sentences. Four list pairs, each consisting of two 50-sentence lists, were constructed with the target word in a LP and HP sentence. Traditionally the R-SPIN is presented at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, S/N) of 8 dB with the listener task to repeat the last word in the sentence. Purpose: The purpose was to determine the practicality of altering the R-SPIN format from a single SNR paradigm into a multiple SNR paradigm from which the 50% points for the HP and LP sentences can be calculated. Research Design: Three repeated measures experiments were conducted. Study Sample: Forty listeners with normal hearing and 184 older listeners with pure-tone hearing loss participated in the sequence of experiments. Data Collection and Analysis: The R-SPIN sentences were edited digitally (1) to maintain the temporal relation between the sentences and babble, (2) to establish the SNRs, and (3) to mix the speech and noise signals to obtain SNRs between –1 and 23 dB. All materials were recorded on CD and were presented through an earphone with the responses recorded and analyzed at the token level. For reference purposes the Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was included in the first experiment. Results: In Experiment 1, recognition performances by listeners with normal hearing were better than performances by listeners with hearing loss. For both groups, performances on the HP materials were better than performances on the LP materials. Performances on the LP materials and on the WIN were similar. Performances at 8 dB S/N were the same with the traditional fixed level presentation and the descending presentation level paradigms. The results from Experiment 2 demonstrated that the four list pairs of R-SPIN materials produced good first approximation psychometric functions over the –4 to 23 dB S/N range, but there were irregularities. The data from Experiment 2 were used in Experiment 3 to guide the selection of the words to be used at the various SNRs that would provide homogeneous performances at each SNR and would produce systematic psychometric functions. In Experiment 3, the 50% points were in good agreement for the LP and HP conditions within both groups of listeners. The psychometric functions for List Pairs 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 had similar characteristics and maintained reasonable separations between the HP and LP functions, whereas the HP and LP functions for List Pair 7 and 8 bisected one another at the lower SNRs. Conclusions: This study indicates that the R-SPIN can be configured into a multiple SNR paradigm. A more in-depth study with the R-SPIN materials is needed to develop lists that are systematic and reasonably equivalent for use on listeners with hearing loss. The approach should be based on the psychometric characteristics of the 200 HP and 200 LP sentences with the current R-SPIN lists discarded. Of importance is maintaining the synchrony between the sentences and their accompanying babble.

scholarly journals Speech Perception in Noise: Directional Microphones versus Frequency Modulation (FM) Systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 426-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jane Enrietto Horn
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Diffuse Noise ◽  
Better Than

The major consequence of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is communicative difficulty, especially with the addition of noise and/or reverberation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare two types of technologies that have been shown to improve the speech-perception performance of individuals with SNHL: directional microphones and frequency modulation (FM) systems. Forty-six adult subjects with slight to severe SNHL served as subjects. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) with correlated diffuse noise under five different listening conditions. Results revealed that speech perception was significantly better with the use of the FM system over that of any of the hearing aid conditions, even with the use of the directional microphone. Additionally, speech perception was significantly better with the use of two hearing aids used in conjunction with two FM receivers rather than with just one FM receiver. Directional microphone performance was significantly better than omnidirectional microphone performance. All aided listening conditions were significantly better than the unaided listening condition.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document