Literature DB >> 21829134

Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

Anthony J Spahr1, Michael F Dorman, Leonid M Litvak, Susan Van Wie, Rene H Gifford, Philipos C Loizou, Louise M Loiselle, Tyler Oakes, Sarah Cook.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to create and validate a new set of sentence lists that could be used to evaluate the speech perception abilities of hearing-impaired listeners and cochlear implant (CI) users. Our intention was to generate a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty for the evaluation of performance over time and across conditions.
DESIGN: The AzBio sentence corpus includes 1000 sentences recorded from two female and two male talkers. The mean intelligibility of each sentence was estimated by processing each sentence through a five-channel CI simulation and calculating the mean percent correct score achieved by 15 normal-hearing listeners. Sentences from each talker were sorted by percent correct score, and 165 sentences were selected from each talker and were then sequentially assigned to 33 lists, each containing 20 sentences (5 sentences from each talker). List equivalency was validated by presenting all lists, in random order, to 15 CI users.
RESULTS: Using sentence scores from the CI simulation study produced 33 lists of sentences with a mean score of 85% correct. The results of the validation study with CI users revealed no significant differences in percent correct scores for 29 of the 33 sentence lists. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance on the 29 lists. The binomial distribution model was used to account for the inherent variability observed in the lists. This model was also used to generate 95% confidence intervals for one and two list comparisons. A retrospective analysis of 172 instances where research subjects had been tested on two lists within a single condition revealed that 94% of results were accurately contained within these confidence intervals.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a five-channel CI simulation to estimate the intelligibility of individual sentences allowed for the creation of a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty. The results of the validation procedure with CI users found that 29 of 33 lists allowed scores that were not statistically different. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance across lists. This variability was accurately described by the binomial distribution model and was used to estimate the magnitude of change required to achieve statistical significance when comparing scores from one and two lists per condition. Fifteen sentence lists have been included in the AzBio Sentence Test for use in the clinical evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners and CI users. An additional eight sentence lists have been included in the Minimum Speech Test Battery to be distributed by the CI manufacturers for the evaluation of CI candidates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21829134      PMCID: PMC4643855          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31822c2549

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  9 in total

1.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-05

2.  Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jon K Shallop; Anna Mary Peterson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

5.  Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences.

Authors:  A Boothroyd; T Hnath-Chisolm; L Hanin; L Kishon-Rabin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  M Nilsson; S D Soli; J A Sullivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable.

Authors:  A R Thornton; M J Raffin
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1978-09

8.  Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Louise H Loiselle
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; J Fitzke; Z Tu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

  9 in total
  165 in total

1.  Dual-carrier processing to convey temporal fine structure cues: Implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Frédéric Apoux; Carla L Youngdahl; Sarah E Yoho; Eric W Healy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of Removing Low-Frequency Electric Information on Speech Perception With Bimodal Hearing.

Authors:  Jennifer R Fowler; Jessica L Eggleston; Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Lina A J Reiss
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 3.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

4.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Minimum Reporting Standards for Adult Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Richard K Gurgel; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.497

6.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  The benefits of bimodal hearing: effect of frequency region and acoustic bandwidth.

Authors:  Sterling W Sheffield; René H Gifford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 1.854

8.  Effect of Scala Tympani Height on Insertion Depth of Straight Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Authors:  William G Morrel; Jourdan T Holder; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread-of-excitation using Cochlear's dual-electrode mode.

Authors:  Jenny L Goehring; Donna L Neff; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.