![]() Speech tests appear to be particularly prone to overestimating real-world outcomes, often showing overly high word recognition scores at rather low (negative) signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios. Similarly, Walden and Walden (2004) found a lack of evidence for any relationship between aided or unaided QuickSIN ( Killion et al., 1998) results and subjective ratings of hearing aid benefit once age was taken into account. (2019) found benefits of directional microphones and digital noise reduction but found no such benefits using self-report scales. (2004) found that benefit from directional microphones measured in the laboratory was not predictive of perceived benefit outside the laboratory. ![]() For example, using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT Nilsson et al., 1994), Cord et al. However, numerous studies have identified discrepancies between the results of speech testing and self-reported speech understanding and device benefit in everyday settings ( Working Group on Speech Understanding, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, 1988 Cord et al., 2004 Walden and Walden, 2004 Pronk et al., 2018 Wu et al., 2019). Overall, the more realistic speech task offered a better dynamic range for capturing individual performance and hearing-aid benefit across the range of real-world environments we examined.Īmong the primary functions of speech-in-noise testing are the prediction of speech intelligibility and device benefit outside the clinic or laboratory conditions in which testing is conducted. Because ceiling and floor effects limit the potential for observing changes in performance, benefits of amplification were highly dependent on the speech materials for a given background noise and participant group. Scores obtained with the more realistic sentences were generally lower than those obtained with the standard sentences, which reduced ceiling effects for the majority of environments/listeners (but introduced floor effects in some cases). We found that scores were driven by hearing loss and the characteristics of the background noise, as expected, but also strongly by the speech materials. Ten young, normal hearing participants took part in the study, along with 20 older participants with a range of levels of hearing loss who were tested with and without hearing-aid amplification. The sentences were embedded at natural speaking levels in six realistic background noises that differed in their overall level, which resulted in a range of fixed signal-to-noise ratios. ![]() Here, we evaluate speech intelligibility using both a standard sentence recall task based on clear, read speech (BKB sentences), and a sentence recall task consisting of spontaneously produced speech excised from conversations which took place in realistic background noises (ECO-SiN sentences). ![]() One way of approaching this goal is to develop speech intelligibility tasks that are more representative of everyday speech communication outside the laboratory. Laboratory and clinical-based assessments of speech intelligibility must evolve to better predict real-world speech intelligibility. 3Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.2Hearing Sciences – Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Glasgow, United Kingdom.1ECHO Laboratory, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Kelly Miles 1* Timothy Beechey 2 Virginia Best 3 Jörg Buchholz 1 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |