Literature DB >> 3169400

Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners.

R M Cox1, G C Alexander, C Gilmore, K M Pusakulich.   

Abstract

Two studies were performed in which hearing-impaired subjects responded to the Connected Speech Test (CST). In experiment 1, 40 subjects, divided into four groups according to extent and configuration of hearing loss, responded to the CST version 1 (CSTv1). This version of the test consisted of 57 passages of connected speech: 48 test passages and 9 practice passages. It was developed on the basis of data for normal-hearing listeners. Performance of hearing-impaired listeners for the CSTv1 revealed that, although the passages were equal in average intelligibility for normal hearers, they were not equally intelligible for hearing-impaired persons. Based on results of data analyses, the 57 passages were reconstituted into 28 pairs of passages: 24 test pairs and 4 practice pairs. The pairs were equal in average intelligibility for both normal and hearing-impaired listeners. This form of the test was named the CST version 2 (CSTv2). In experiment 2, an additional 23 hearing-impaired subjects responded to the CSTv2. Critical differences and the slope of the signal to babble ratio (SBR) function were determined for the CSTv2 for hearing-impaired listeners. When two CSTv2 pairs were used per score, the 95% critical difference for hearing-impaired subjects was about 15.5 rationalized arcsine units (rau). The mean SBR function slope for hearing-impaired listeners was 8.5 rau/dB. Comparing the critical difference with the SBR function slope, it may be seen that, for hearing-impaired listeners, differences in intelligibility equivalent to a 2 dB change in SBR can be detected with CST scores based on mean performance across two passage pairs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3169400     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-198808000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  17 in total

1.  Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.

Authors:  Larry E Humes
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

2.  The effect of hearing aid technologies on listening in an automobile.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Ruth A Bentler; Rachel W Stanziola
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Examination of the validity of auditory traits and tests.

Authors:  G A Flamme
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2001-09

4.  Speech Perception in Noise and Listening Effort of Older Adults With Nonlinear Frequency Compression Hearing Aids.

Authors:  James Shehorn; Nicole Marrone; Thomas Muller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Evaluation of Speech-Perception Training for Hearing Aid Users: A Multisite Study in Progress.

Authors:  James D Miller; Charles S Watson; Judy R Dubno; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2015-11

6.  Characteristics of Real-World Signal to Noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Syed Shabih Hasan; Anne Welhaven; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  The Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Listening Effort in Adults With Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Erin M Picou; Julia Gordon; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Output signal-to-noise ratio and speech perception in noise: effects of algorithm.

Authors:  Christi W Miller; Ruth A Bentler; Yu-Hsiang Wu; James Lewis; Kelly Tremblay
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. II. Sloping hearing loss.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Measuring listening effort: driving simulator versus simple dual-task paradigm.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Nazan Aksan; Matthew Rizzo; Elizabeth Stangl; Xuyang Zhang; Ruth Bentler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.