A comparison of word-recognition abilities assessed with digit pairs and digit triplets in multitalker babble

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 499-510

  Wilson, Richard H ^a,b,c   Burks, Christopher A ^a   Weakley, Deborah G ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^b EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory perception; Background noise; Digital perception; Hearing loss; Monaural; Monosyllabic words; Normal hearing; Signal to babble ratio; Speech perception; Word recognition in multitalker babble

Indexed keywords

BIOELECTRIC POTENTIALS; HEARING AIDS; PATIENT REHABILITATION; SENSORY PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BACKGROUND PERCEPTION; HEARING LOSS; MONAURAL; MONOSYLLABIC WORDS; NORMAL HEARING; SIGNAL-TO-BABBLE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION; WORD RECOGNITION IN MULTITALKER BABBLE;

AUDITION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTELLIGENCE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECORDING; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOMETRICS; REFERENCE VALUES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 31444441044     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: 07487711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2004.10.0134     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Hirsh IJ. Binaural hearing aids: A review of some experiments. J Speech Hear Disord. 1950;15:114-23.
2. Groen JJ. Social hearing handicap: Its measurement by speech audiometry in noise. Int Audiol. 1969;8:182-83.
3. Carhart R, Tillman TW. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;91:273-79.
4. Tillman TW, Carhart R, Olsen WO. Hearing aid efficiency in a competing speech situation. J Speech Hear Res. 1970;13:789-811.
5. Olsen WO, Noffsinger D, Kurdziel S. Speech discrimination in quiet and in white noise by patients with peripheral and central lesions. Acta Otolaryngol. 1975;80:375-82.
6. Plomp R, Duquesnoy AJ. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid. Scand Audiol. 1982;15:95-111.
7. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;76:87-96.
8. Gordon-Salant S. Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm. Ear Hear. 1987;8:277-82.
9. Beattie RC. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:20-32.
10. Killion MC. New thinking in hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Sem Hear. 2002;23:57-75.
11. Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB S/B to 0 dB S/B. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40:321-28. [http://www.vard.org/jour/03/40/4/pdf/Wilson-B. pdf]
12. Wilson RH. Development of a speech in multitalker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14:453-70.
13. Speaks C, Jerger J. Performance-intensity characteristics of synthetic sentences. J Speech Hear Res. 1965;9:305-12.
14. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliot LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;61:1337-51.
15. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear. 1987;8:119S-26S.
16. Killion MC, Villchur E. Kessler was right - partly: But SIN test shows some aids improve hearing in noise. Hear J. 1993;46:31-35.
17. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95:1085-99.
18. Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic SRT screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol. 2004;43:15-28.
19. Fletcher H. Speech and hearing. 1st ed. New York (NY): Van Nostrand; 1929. p. 1-346.
20. Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE, Karlin JE, Stevens SS. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope. 1947;57:57-89.
21. Miller GA, Heise, GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psych. 1951;41:329-35.
22. Broadbent DE. The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. J Exp Psych. 1954;47:191-96.
23. Kimura D. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psych. 1961;15:166-71.
24. Wilson RH, Weakley DG. The use of digit triplets to evaluate word-recognition abilities in multitalker babble. Sem Hear. 2004;25:93-111.
25. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;63:533-49.
26. Sperry JL, Wiley TL, Chial MR. Word recognition performance in various background competitors. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;8:71-80.
27. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York (NY): ANSI; 1996. p. 1-33.
28. Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. Tech Rep. SAM-TR; 1966. p. 1-12.
29. Finney DJ. Statistical method in biological assay. 1st ed. London (England): C. Griffen; 1952. p. 1-661.
30. McArdle RA, Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. J Am Acad Audiol. In press 2005.
31. Keith RW, Talis HP. The use of speech in noise in diagnostic audiometry. J Auditory Res. 1970;10:201-4.
32. Pekkarinen E, Salmivalli A, Suonpää J. Effect of noise on word discrimination by subjects with impaired hearing, compared with those with normal hearing. Scand Audiol. 1990;19:31-36.
33. Souza PE, Turner CW. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37:655-61.
34. Divenyi PL, Haupt KM. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-tomoderate hearing loss. I. Age and lateral asymmetry effects. Ear Hear. 1997;18:42-61.
35. Divenyi PL, Haupt KM. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis. Ear Hear. 1997;18:100-113.
36. Divenyi PL, Haupt KM. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-tomoderate hearing loss. III. Factor representation. Ear Hear. 1997;18:189-201.
37. Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BEK. Aging and word recognition in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;9:191-98.
38. Stephens, SDG. The input for a damaged cochlea-A brief review. British J Audiol. 1976;10:97-101.
39. Wilson RH, Margolis RH. Measurement of the auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle D, Rintelmann W, editors. Principles of speech audiometry. Baltimore (MD): University Park Press; 1983. p. 79-126.
40. Murdock BB Jr. The serial position effect of free recall. J Exp Psychol. 1962;64:482-88.
41. Bartz WH. Serial position effects in dichotic listening. Percept Mot Skills. 1968;27:1014.
42. Jahnke JC. Presentation rate and the serial-position effect of immediate serial recall. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 1968;7:608-12.
43. High WS, Fairbanks G, Glorig A. Scale for self-assessment of hearing handicap. J. Speech Hear Disord. 1964;29:215-30.
44. Demorest ME, Walden BE. Psychometric principles in the selection, interpretation and evaluation of communication self-assessment inventories. J Speech Hear Res. 1984;49:226-40.
45. Rowland JP, Dirks DD, Dubno JR, Bell TS. Comparison of speech recognition-in-noise and subjective communication assessment. Ear Hear. 1985;6:291-96.
46. Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Word recognition in multitalker babble measured with two psychophysical methods. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:627-36.