Literature DB >> 28039514

Variability of word discrimination scores in clinical practice and consequences on their sensitivity to hearing loss.

Annie Moulin1,2,3, André Bernard4, Laurent Tordella5, Judith Vergne6,7, Annie Gisbert4, Christian Martin4, Céline Richard8.   

Abstract

Speech perception scores are widely used to assess patient's functional hearing, yet most linguistic material used in these audiometric tests dates to before the availability of large computerized linguistic databases. In an ENT clinic population of 120 patients with median hearing loss of 43-dB HL, we quantified the variability and the sensitivity of speech perception scores to hearing loss, measured using disyllabic word lists, as a function of both the number of ten-word lists and type of scoring used (word, syllables or phonemes). The mean word recognition scores varied significantly across lists from 54 to 68%. The median of the variability of the word recognition score ranged from 30% for one ten-word list down to 20% for three ten-word lists. Syllabic and phonemic scores showed much less variability with standard deviations decreasing by 1.15 with the use of syllabic scores and by 1.45 with phonemic scores. The sensitivity of each list to hearing loss and distortions varied significantly. There was an increase in the minimum effect size that could be seen for syllabic scores compared to word scores, with no significant further improvement with phonemic scores. The use of at least two ten-word lists, quoted in syllables rather than in whole words, contributed to a large decrease in variability and an increase in sensitivity to hearing loss. However, those results emphasize the need of using updated linguistic material for clinical speech score assessments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disyllabic word lists; Effect size; Hearing loss; Speech recognition scores

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28039514     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-016-4439-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  36 in total

1.  Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers.

Authors:  Richard W Harris; Shawn L Nissen; Melissa G Pola; David L McPherson; George A Tavartkiladze; Dennis L Eggett
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  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

3.  European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Chris James; Domenico Cuda; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Bruno Frachet; Johan H M Frijns; Thomas Klenzner; Roland Laszig; Manuel Manrique; Mathieu Marx; Paul Merkus; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Erwin Offeciers; Joerg Pesch; Angel Ramos-Macias; Alain Robier; Olivier Sterkers; Alain Uziel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

Authors:  Marc Brysbaert; Boris New
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

6.  Development of Mandarin monosyllabic speech test materials in China.

Authors:  Demin Han; Shuo Wang; Hua Zhang; Jing Chen; Wenbo Jiang; Robert Mannell; Philip Newall; Luo Zhang
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. ICRA Working Group on Multilingual Speech Tests.

Authors:  Michael A Akeroyd; Stig Arlinger; Ruth A Bentler; Arthur Boothroyd; Norbert Dillier; Wouter A Dreschler; Jean-Pierre Gagné; Mark Lutman; Jan Wouters; Lena Wong; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.117

8.  Non-verbal visual reinforcement affects speech audiometry in the elderly.

Authors:  Federica Di Berardino; Stella Forti; Valentina Mattei; Dario Alpini; Antonio Cesarani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Results in using the Freiburger monosyllabic speech test in noise without and with hearing aids.

Authors:  J Löhler; B Akcicek; B Wollenberg; R Schönweiler; L Verges; Ch Langer; U Machate; R Noppeney; K Schultz; J Kleeberg; B Junge-Hülsing; L E Walther; P Schlattmann; A Ernst
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Validation of a French-Language Version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, Cluster Analysis and Comparison with the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale.

Authors:  Annie Moulin; Celine Richard
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparing methods of analysis in pupillometry: application to the assessment of listening effort in hearing-impaired patients.

Authors:  Lou Seropian; Mathieu Ferschneider; Fanny Cholvy; Christophe Micheyl; Aurélie Bidet-Caulet; Annie Moulin
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-06-03

2.  Predictive models for cochlear implant outcomes: Performance, generalizability, and the impact of cohort size.

Authors:  Elaheh Shafieibavani; Benjamin Goudey; Isabell Kiral; Peter Zhong; Antonio Jimeno-Yepes; Annalisa Swan; Manoj Gambhir; Andreas Buechner; Eugen Kludt; Robert H Eikelboom; Cathy Sucher; Rene H Gifford; Riaan Rottier; Kerrie Plant; Hamideh Anjomshoa
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

3.  Predicting Speech Perception in Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using Automatic Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Lionel Fontan; Tom Cretin-Maitenaz; Christian Füllgrabe
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.