- Speech perception in noise,
- sentence list,
- SNR 50,
- SNR loss
Abstract
The present study aimed to develop and standardize sentences for speech in noise test in Malayalam language for children and adults. A total of 500 Malayalam words were selected and evaluated for familiarity. Using 300 most familiar words, 150 syntactically and semantically correct sentences were constructed. These sentences were familiarized again by five qualified speech language pathologists. 105 most familiar sentences were carefully chosen and randomly assigned to 15 lists of seven sentences each. A four talker speech babble was added to these sentences at different SNR levels, from +5 to -10 dB SNR in 2.5 dB steps. The speech babble was added in such a way that the first sentence in each list had maximum SNR and last sentence had minimum SNR. The speech perception in noise ability was assessed on 120 normal hearing participants (60 adults and 60 children). The perceptual SNR-50 was calculated for each list, based on the perceptual scores obtained by each participant, separately for children and adults. Statistical analysis revealed that the perceptual scores for some lists were found to be significantly different from other lists, and hence, those lists were excluded from the final test. After removing these lists, seven lists were selected for children and adults, separately. The mean SNR-50 was -4.671 dB for children and -6.357 dB for adults. Reliability and internal validity results showed that the test is reliable and valid to assess speech perception in noise abilities in children as well as in adults.
References
Avinash, M. C., Meti, R. R., & Kumar, A. U. (2010). Developmentof sentences for quick speech-in-noise (QuickSin) test in Kannada. Journal of Indian Speech and Hearing Association, 24, 59-65.
Campbell, L., & Gordon, R. G. (2008). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Language, 84, 636-641.
Duncan, K. R., & Aarts, N. L. (2006). A comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN tests. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 30, 86-94.
Hervais-Adelman, A. G., Carlyon, R. P., Johnsrude, I. S., & Davis, M. H. (2012). Brain regions recruited for the effortful comprehension of noise-vocoded words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1145-1166.
Hota, P., Dutta, P., & Chatterjee, I. (2014). Psychometric validation of speech perception in noise test material in Odia (Master's Dissertation). West Bengal University of Health Science, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
Killion, M. C., Niquette, P. A., Gudmundsen, G. I., Revit, L. J., & Banerjee, S. (2004). Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 2395-2405.
Lagace, J., Jutras, B., & Gagne, J.-P. (2010). Auditory processing disorder and speech perception problems in noise: Finding the underlying origin. American Journal of Audiology, 19, 17.
Lee, J. H., & Yi, D. W. (2017). A comparison of adaptive Sentence-in-Noise tests. Audiology and Speech Research, 13, 9-18.
Mishra, S., Stenfelt, S., Lunner, T., Ronnberg, J., & Rudner, M. (2014). Cognitive spare capacity in older adults with hearing loss. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, 96.
Muthuselvi, T., & Yathiraj, A. (2010). Utility of the screening checklist for auditory processing (SCAP) in detecting (C) APD in children. Student Research at AIISH, 7, 159-175.
Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085- 1099.
Ramya, V., & Yathiraj, A. (2014). Screening Checklist for Auditory Processing in Adults (SCAP-A): Development and preliminary findings. Journal of Hearing Science, 4, 33-43.
Ronnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., & Lunner, T. (2008).Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). International Journal of Audiology, 47 Suppl 2, S99-105.
Rudner, M., Foo, C., Ronnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2009). Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 405-
418.
Sharma, S., Tripathy, R., & Saxena, U. (2016). Critical appraisal of speech in noise tests: a systematic review and survey. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5, 13.
Shayanmehr, S., Tahaei, A. A., Fatahi, J., Jalaie, S., & Modarresi, Y. (2015). Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Auditory and Vestibular Research, 24, 234-244.
Shehorn, J., Marrone, N., & Muller, T. (2017). Speech perception in noise and listening e ort of older adults with nonlinear frequency compression hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 1.
Tillman, T., & Olsen, W. (1973). Speech Audiometry. In Modern developments in Audiology. Academic Press.
Vagias, W. M. (2006). Likert-Type Scale Response Anchors. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from http://www.academia.edu/4384441/Likert-Type Scale Response Anchors CitationVagias Wade M. 2006 . Likert-type scale response anchors.Clemson International Institute for Tourism.
Wilson, R. H., McArdle, R. A., & Smith, S. L. (2007). An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 844-856.
Zhou, R., Zhang, H., Wang, S., Chen, J., D, & Ren,A. (2017). Development and evaluation of the Mandarin Quick Speech-in-Noise Test materials in mainland China. Journal of Phonetics & Audiology, 1-8. 54