Literature DB >> 23231814

Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test.

Jaimie L Gilbert1, Terrin N Tamati, David B Pisoni.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for new clinically feasible speech recognition tests that are theoretically motivated, sensitive to individual differences, and access the core perceptual and neurocognitive processes used in speech perception. PRESTO (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set) is a new high-variability sentence test designed to reflect current theories of exemplar-based learning, attention, and perception, including lexical organization and automatic encoding of indexical attributes. Using sentences selected from the TIMIT (Texas Instruments/Massachusetts Institute of Technology) speech corpus, PRESTO was developed to include talker and dialect variability. The test consists of lists balanced for talker gender, keywords, frequency, and familiarity.
PURPOSE: To investigate the performance, reliability, and validity of PRESTO. RESEARCH
DESIGN: In Phase I, PRESTO sentences were presented in multitalker babble at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to obtain a distribution of performance. In Phase II, participants returned and were tested on new PRESTO sentences and on HINT (Hearing In Noise Test) sentences presented in multitalker babble. STUDY SAMPLE: Young, normal-hearing adults (N = 121) were recruited from the Indiana University community for Phase I. Participants who scored within the upper and lower quartiles of performance in Phase I were asked to return for Phase II (N = 40). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In both Phase I and Phase II, participants listened to sentences presented diotically through headphones while seated in enclosed carrels at the Speech Research Laboratory at Indiana University. They were instructed to type in the sentence that they heard using keyboards interfaced to a computer. Scoring for keywords was completed offline following data collection. Phase I data were analyzed by determining the distribution of performance on PRESTO at each SNR and at the average performance across all SNRs. PRESTO reliability was analyzed by a correlational analysis of participant performance at test (Phase I) and retest (Phase II). PRESTO validity was analyzed by a correlational analysis of participant performance on PRESTO and HINT sentences tested in Phase II, and by an analysis of variance of within-subject factors of sentence test and SNR, and a between-subjects factor of group, based on level of Phase I performance.
RESULTS: A wide range of performance on PRESTO was observed; averaged across all SNRs, keyword accuracy ranged from 40.26 to 76.18% correct. PRESTO accuracy at retest (Phase II) was highly correlated with Phase I accuracy (r = 0.92, p < 0.001). PRESTO scores were also correlated with scores on HINT sentences (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). Phase II results showed an interaction between sentence test type and SNR [F(3, 114) = 121.36, p < 0.001], with better performance on HINT sentences at more favorable SNRs and better performance on PRESTO sentences at poorer SNRs.
CONCLUSIONS: PRESTO demonstrated excellent test/retest reliability. Although a moderate correlation was observed between PRESTO and HINT sentences, a different pattern of results occurred with the two types of sentences depending on the level of the competition, suggesting the use of different processing strategies. Findings from this study demonstrate the importance of high-variability materials for assessing and understanding individual differences in speech perception. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23231814      PMCID: PMC3683852          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.1.4

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


  36 in total

1.  Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception.

Authors:  D B Pisoni
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Richard H Wilson; Rachel A McArdle; Sherri L Smith
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Lexical and indexical cues in masking by competing speech.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests.

Authors:  Marianne Theunissen; De Wet Swanepoel; Johan Hanekom
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds.

Authors:  R Carhart; T W Tillman; E S Greetis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  A "rationalized" arcsine transform.

Authors:  G A Studebaker
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1985-09

8.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children.

Authors:  J Bench; A Kowal; J Bamford
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

Review 9.  The emergence of cognitive hearing science.

Authors:  Stig Arlinger; Thomas Lunner; Björn Lyxell; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2009-10

Review 10.  The signal-cognition interface: interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes.

Authors:  Stefan Stenfelt; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2009-10
View more
  54 in total

1.  Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; Kara Vasil; Taylor Wucinich; David B Pisoni; Jodi Baxter; Christin Ray; Valeriy Shafiro
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  The Relationship Between Environmental Sound Awareness and Speech Recognition Skills in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; David B Pisoni; Valeriy Shafiro; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Verbal Learning and Memory in Early-Implanted, Prelingually Deaf Adolescent and Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Suyog H Chandramouli; William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Age effects on the contributions of envelope and periodicity cues to recognition of interrupted speech in quiet and with a competing talker.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Kenneth I Vaden; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Recognition of foreign-accented speech in noise: The interplay between talker intelligibility and linguistic structure.

Authors:  Dorina Strori; Ann R Bradlow; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Long-term musical experience and auditory and visual perceptual abilities under adverse conditions.

Authors:  Esperanza M Anaya; David B Pisoni; William G Kronenberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Age effects on perceptual organization of speech: Contributions of glimpsing, phonemic restoration, and speech segregation.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Kenneth I Vaden; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Prior listening exposure to a reverberant room improves open-set intelligibility of high-variability sentences.

Authors:  Nirmal Kumar Srinivasan; Pavel Zahorik
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene modulates the influence of informational masking on speech recognition.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; W Todd Maddox; Valerie S Knopik; John E McGeary; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Jaimie L Gilbert; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.