Literature DB >> 22533975

Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

Sarah E King1, Jill B Firszt, Ruth M Reeder, Laura K Holden, Michael Strube.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current measures used to determine sentence recognition abilities in cochlear implant recipients often include tests with one talker and one rate of speech. Performance with these measures may not accurately represent the speech recognition abilities of the listeners. Evaluation of cochlear implant performance should include measures that reflect realistic listening conditions. For example, the use of multiple talkers who vary in gender, rate of speech, and regional dialects represent varied communication interactions that people encounter daily. The TIMIT sentences, which use multiple talkers and incorporate these variations, provide additional test material for evaluating speech recognition. Dorman and colleagues created 34 lists of TIMIT sentences that were normalized for equal intelligibility using simulations of cochlear implant processing with normal-hearing listeners. Adults with sensorineural hearing loss who listen with cochlear implants represent a different population. Further study is needed to determine if these lists are equivalent for adult cochlear implant recipients and, if not, to identify a subset of lists that may be used with this population.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the speech recognition equivalence of 34 TIMIT sentence lists with adult cochlear implant recipients. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A prospective study comparing test-retest results within the same group of listeners. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-two adult cochlear implant recipients who met the inclusion criteria of at least 3 mo device use and a monosyllabic word score of 30% or greater participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were administered 34 TIMIT sentence lists (20 sentences per list) at each of two test sessions several months apart. List order was randomized and results scored as percent of words correct. Test-retest correlations and 95% confidence intervals for the means were used to identify equivalent lists with high test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: Mean list scores across participants ranged from 66 to 81% with an overall mean of 73%. Twenty-nine lists had high test-retest reliability. Using the overall mean as a benchmark, the 95% confidence intervals indicated that 25 of the remaining 29 lists were equivalent (e.g., the benchmark of 73% fell within the 95% confidence interval for both test and retest).
CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five of the TIMIT lists evaluated are equivalent when used with adult cochlear implant recipients who have open-set word recognition abilities. These lists may prove valuable for monitoring progress, comparing listening conditions or treatments, and developing aural rehabilitation plans for cochlear implant recipients. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22533975      PMCID: PMC3428733          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.23.5.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  42 in total

1.  Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  W M Luxford
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials.

Authors:  R H Wilson; A S Carter
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution.

Authors:  P C Loizou; M Dorman; O Poroy; T Spahr
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Holes in hearing.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin; Deniz Baskent
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-06

6.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Effects of variation in emotional tone of voice on speech perception.

Authors:  John W Mullennix; Tressa Bihon; Jodie Bricklemyer; Jeremy Gaston; Jessica M Keener
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.500

8.  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

9.  Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  10 in total

1.  A longitudinal study in adults with sequential bilateral cochlear implants: time course for individual ear and bilateral performance.

Authors:  Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Michael J Strube
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Lisa Cowdrey; Sarah King
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Effect of Microphone Configuration and Sound Source Location on Speech Recognition for Adult Cochlear Implant Users with Current-Generation Sound Processors.

Authors:  Robert T Dwyer; Jillian Roberts; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  List Equivalency of PRESTO for the Evaluation of Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Kathleen F Faulkner; Terrin N Tamati; Jaimie L Gilbert; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Kolberg; Sterling W Sheffield; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy.

Authors:  Douglas P Sladen; René H Gifford; David Haynes; David Kelsall; Aaron Benson; Kristen Lewis; Teresa Zwolan; Qian-Jie Fu; Bruce Gantz; Jan Gilden; Brian Westerberg; Cindy Gustin; Lori O'Neil; Colin L Driscoll
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Chelsea Blankenship; Fawen Zhang; Robert Keith
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Laura K Holden; Noël Y Dwyer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Visualization of Speech Perception Analysis via Phoneme Alignment: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  J Tilak Ratnanather; Lydia C Wang; Seung-Ho Bae; Erin R O'Neill; Elad Sagi; Daniel J Tward
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 4.003

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.