Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

2004 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 2395-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Patricia A. Niquette ◽  
Gail I. Gudmundsen ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit ◽  
Shilpi Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Measuring Signal

Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN™ Lists

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 157-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Richard H. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Performance Variability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Db Difference

The purpose of this study was to determine the list equivalency of the 18 QuickSIN™ (Quick Speech in Noise test) lists. Individuals with normal hearing (n = 24) and with sensorineural hearing loss (n = 72) were studied. Mean recognition performances on the 18 lists by the listeners with normal hearing were 2.8 to 4.3 dB SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), whereas the range was 10.0 to 14.3 dB SNR for the listeners with hearing loss. The psychometric functions for each list showed high performance variability across lists for listeners with hearing loss but not for listeners with normal hearing. For listeners with hearing loss, Lists 4, 5, 13, and 16 fell outside of the critical difference. The data from this study suggest nine lists that provide homogenous results for listeners with and without hearing loss. Finally, there was an 8.7 dB difference in performances between the two groups indicating a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio required by the listeners with hearing loss to obtain equal performance.

Detection and Recognition of Stop Consonants by Normal.Hearing and Hearing Impaired Listeners

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 942-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Turner ◽  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Stephanie Barrett ◽  
Amy R. Horwitz
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Stop Consonants ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Detection And Recognition

This study examined the possibility that hearing-impaired listeners, in addition to displaying poorer-than-normal recognition of speech presented in background noise, require a larger signal-to-noise ratio for the detection of the speech sounds. Psychometric functions for the detection and recognition of stop consonants were obtained from both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Expressing the speech levels in terms of their short-term spectra, the detection of consonants for both subject groups occurred at the same signal-to-noise ratio. In contrast, the hearing-impaired listeners displayed poorer recognition performance than the normal-hearing listeners. These results imply that the higher signal-to-noise ratios required for a given level of recognition by some subjects with hearing loss are not due in part to a deficit in detection of the signals in the masking noise, but rather are due exclusively to a deficit in recognition.

Speech in noise testing before and after grommet insertion

2012 ◽  
Vol 126 (10) ◽  
pp. 1010-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Possamai ◽  
G Kirk ◽  
A Scott ◽  
D Skinner
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Noise Signal ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio

AbstractObjectives:To assess the feasibility of designing and implementing a speech in noise test in children before and after grommet insertion, and to analyse the results of such a test in a small group of children.Methods:Twelve children aged six to nine years who were scheduled to undergo grommet insertion were identified. They underwent speech in noise testing before and after grommet insertion. This testing used Arthur Boothroyd word lists read at 60 dB in four listening conditions presented in a sound field: firstly in quiet conditions, then in signal to noise ratios of +10 (50 dB background noise), 0 (60 dB) and −10 (70 dB).Results:Mean phoneme scores were: in quiet conditions, 28.1 pre- and 30 post-operatively (p = 0.04); in 50 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio +10), 24.2 pre- and 29 post-operatively (p < 0.01); in 60 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio 0), 22.6 pre- and 27.5 post-operatively (p = 0.06); and in 70 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio −10), 13.9 pre- and 21 post-operatively (p = 0.05).Conclusion:This small study suggests that speech in noise testing is feasible in this scenario. Our small group of children demonstrated a significant improvement in speech in noise scores following grommet insertion. This is likely to translate into a significant advantage in the educational environment.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document