PURPOSE: Although poorer understanding of speech in noise by listeners who are hearing-impaired (HI) is known not to be directly related to audiometric hearing threshold, HT (f), grouping HI listeners with HT (f) is widely practiced. In this article, the relationship between consonant recognition and HT (f) is considered over a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). METHOD: Confusion matrices (CMs) from 25 HI ears were generated in response to 16 consonant-vowel syllables presented at 6 different SNRs. Individual differences scaling (INDSCAL) was applied to both feature-based matrices and CMs in order to evaluate the relationship between HT (f) and consonant recognition among HI listeners. RESULTS: The results showed no predictive relationship between the percent error scores (Pe) and HT (f) across SNRs. The multiple regression models showed that the HT (f) accounted for 39% of the total variance of the slopes of the Pe. Feature-based INDSCAL analysis showed consistent grouping of listeners across SNRs, but not in terms of HT (f). Systematic relationship between measures was also not defined by CM-based INDSCAL analysis across SNRs. CONCLUSIONS: HT (f) did not account for the majority of the variance (39%) in consonant recognition in noise when the complete body of the CM was considered.
PURPOSE: Although poorer understanding of speech in noise by listeners who are hearing-impaired (HI) is known not to be directly related to audiometric hearing threshold, HT (f), grouping HI listeners with HT (f) is widely practiced. In this article, the relationship between consonant recognition and HT (f) is considered over a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). METHOD: Confusion matrices (CMs) from 25 HI ears were generated in response to 16 consonant-vowel syllables presented at 6 different SNRs. Individual differences scaling (INDSCAL) was applied to both feature-based matrices and CMs in order to evaluate the relationship between HT (f) and consonant recognition among HI listeners. RESULTS: The results showed no predictive relationship between the percent error scores (Pe) and HT (f) across SNRs. The multiple regression models showed that the HT (f) accounted for 39% of the total variance of the slopes of the Pe. Feature-based INDSCAL analysis showed consistent grouping of listeners across SNRs, but not in terms of HT (f). Systematic relationship between measures was also not defined by CM-based INDSCAL analysis across SNRs. CONCLUSIONS:HT (f) did not account for the majority of the variance (39%) in consonant recognition in noise when the complete body of the CM was considered.
Authors: David L Woods; Tanya Arbogast; Zoe Doss; Masood Younus; Timothy J Herron; E William Yund Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240