Literature DB >> 26134725

List Equivalency of PRESTO for the Evaluation of Speech Recognition.

Kathleen F Faulkner1,2, Terrin N Tamati1, Jaimie L Gilbert3, David B Pisoni1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing clinical need for the development of ecologically valid and robust assessment measures of speech recognition. Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO) is a new high-variability sentence recognition test that is sensitive to individual differences and was designed for use with several different clinical populations. PRESTO differs from other sentence recognition tests because the target sentences differ in talker, gender, and regional dialect. Increasing interest in using PRESTO as a clinical test of spoken word recognition dictates the need to establish equivalence across test lists.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish list equivalency of PRESTO for clinical use. RESEARCH
DESIGN: PRESTO sentence lists were presented to three groups of normal-hearing listeners in noise (multitalker babble [MTB] at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio) or under eight-channel cochlear implant simulation (CI-Sim). STUDY SAMPLE: Ninety-one young native speakers of English who were undergraduate students from the Indiana University community participated in this study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants completed a sentence recognition task using different PRESTO sentence lists. They listened to sentences presented over headphones and typed in the words they heard on a computer. Keyword scoring was completed offline. Equivalency for sentence lists was determined based on the list intelligibility (mean keyword accuracy for each list compared with all other lists) and listener consistency (the relation between mean keyword accuracy on each list for each listener).
RESULTS: Based on measures of list equivalency and listener consistency, ten PRESTO lists were found to be equivalent in the MTB condition, nine lists were equivalent in the CI-Sim condition, and six PRESTO lists were equivalent in both conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: PRESTO is a valuable addition to the clinical toolbox for assessing sentence recognition across different populations. Because the test condition influenced the overall intelligibility of lists, researchers and clinicians should take the presentation conditions into consideration when selecting the best PRESTO lists for their research or clinical protocols. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26134725      PMCID: PMC6205295          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.14082

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


  55 in total

1.  Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English.

Authors:  Constance M Clarke; Merrill F Garrett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Philipos C Loizou; Cindy J Dana; Jennifer S Schmidt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech.

Authors:  C V HUDGINS; J E HAWKINS
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1947-01       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Talker-specific learning in speech perception.

Authors:  L C Nygaard; D B Pisoni
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1998-04

6.  Acoustic and linguistic factors in the perception of bandpass-filtered speech.

Authors:  G S Stickney; P F Assmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores. A research note.

Authors:  M J Raffin; A R Thornton
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1980-03

9.  Lip-read me now, hear me better later: cross-modal transfer of talker-familiarity effects.

Authors:  Lawrence D Rosenblum; Rachel M Miller; Kauyumari Sanchez
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-05

10.  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
View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Forward Digit Span and Word Familiarity Do Not Correlate With Differences in Speech Recognition in Individuals With Cochlear Implants After Accounting for Auditory Resolution.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Victoria A Sevich; Shauntelle A Cannon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  The Perception of Regional Dialects and Foreign Accents by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; David B Pisoni; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?

Authors:  Sarah Nyirjesy; Cole Rodman; Terrin N Tamati; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 2.619

5.  Serial Recall Predicts Vocoded Sentence Recognition Across Spectral Resolutions.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Michael F Barry
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 2.297

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.