Speech Reception Thresholds for Polish Language Word and Sentence Tests Presented in Noise

• Autorzy: Schelenz A. , Skrodzka E.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/aoa.2018.125154

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of the study was to determine the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) for young persons with normal hearing. The following three tests available for Polish language were used: the New Articulation Lists (NAL-93) version of 2011, the Polish Sentence Test (PST) and the Polish Sentence Matrix Test (PSMT). When using PST and PSMT the masking signal was babule noise made of the language material contained in the test. For NAL-93 the masking signal was speech noise. The speech reception threshold (SRT) was found to be (−6:8 ± 1.1), (−4:8 ± 1.6), (−3:5 ± 1.8) and (−3:4 ± 2.0) dB SNR for PST, PSMT, NAL-93 (constant stimuli method) and NAL-93 (short method), respectively. The values of SRT depend on semantic redundancy of the language material. Differences in SRT were statistically non-significant only for NAL-93 (constant stimuli method) and NAL-93 (short method). Moreover, it was shown that the time needed for presentation of a single word list (NAL-93, short method) or single sentence list (PST, PSMT) was comparable and equal to 2-3 minutes. The most uniform SRT values were obtained for PST. The PSMT was the least demanding for the listener, experimenter and equipment.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

speech reception threshold in noise; Polish Sentence Test; Polish Sentence Matrix Test; new articulation lists

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 43, No. 4
• Strony: 603--612
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Schelenz A.

• Faculty of Physics, Institute of Acoustics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-612 Poznań, Poland

autor

Skrodzka E.

• Faculty of Physics, Institute of Acoustics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-612 Poznań, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Akeroyd M.A. et al. (2015), International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests ICRA Working Group on Multilingual Speech Tests, International Journal of Audiology, 54, Suppl. 2, 17-22.
• 2. Brand T., Wittkop T., Wagener K., Kollmeier B. (2004), Comparison of Oldenburg sentencje test and Freiburg word test in closed-set versions, Proceedings of 7th Congress of the German Society of Audiology, Leipzig, Germany.
• 3. Brungart D.S. et al. (2017), Development and validation of the Speech Reception in Noise (SPRINT) Test, Hearing Research, 349, 90-97.
• 4. Darwin C. (2010), Speech Perception, [in:] Oxford handbook of auditory science: hearing, Plack C. [Ed.], Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• 5. Finney D. J. (1952), Statistical method in biological assay, pp. 524-530, C. Griffen, London.
• 6. Füllgrabe C., Moore B. C. J., Stone M. A. (2014), Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition, Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6, 347, 1-25.
• 7. Habasińska D., Skrodzka E., Bogusz-Witczak E. (2018), Development of Polish Speech Test Signal and its comparison with International Speech Test Signal (ISTS), Archives of Acoustics, 43, 2, 253-262.
• 8. Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M. A., Castro F. Z., Wardenga N., Kollmeier B. (2012), A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 51, 7, 536-544.
• 9. IEC 60645-1 (2017), Electroacoustics – Audiometric equipment – Part 1: Equipment for pure-tone and speech audiometry.
• 10. Jansen S. et al. (2012), Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multi-center study, International Journal of Audiology, 51, 164-173.
• 11. Jassem W. (1973), Fundamentals of phonetic acoustics [in Polish], PWN, Warszawa.
• 12. Kociński J., Hafke-Dys H., Preis A. (2014), Subjective methods for evaluation of speech intelligibility [in Polish], [in:] Hearing healthcare profession, Hojan E. [Ed.], pp. 275-308, Scientific Publishers of AMU, Poznań.
• 13. Kollmeier B., Wesselkamp M. (1997), Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2412-2421.
• 14. Kollmeier B. et al. (2015), The multilingual matrix test: principles, applications, and comparison across languages. A review, International Journal of Audiology, 54, 2, 3-16.
• 15. Lorens A., Obrycka A., Piotrowska A. (2006), Validation of articulation lists according to Pruszewicz for evaluation of speech intelligibility in the presence of noise [in Polish], Audiofonologia, 29, 71-72.
• 16. Luts H., Boon E., Wable J., Wouters J. (2008), FIST: A French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 47, 373-374.
• 17. Martin F. N., Clark J. G. (2009), Introduction to audiology, Pearson, Boston.
• 18. McArdle R., Chisolm T. H., Abrams H. B., Wilson R. H., Doyle P. J. (2005a), The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults, Trends in Amplification, 9, 127-143.
• 19. McArdle R. A., Wilson R. H., Burks C. A. (2005b), Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16, 726-739.
• 20. Moore B. C. J., Skrodzka E. (2002), Detection of frequency modulation by hearing– impaired listeners: Effects of carrier frequency, modulation rate, and addend amplitude modulation, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1, 327-335.
• 21. Niewiarowski J. (2013), Introduction to variance analysis with repeatable measurements [in Polish], [in:] Statistical Signpost 2. Practical Introduction to Variance Analysis, Bedyńska S., Cypryańska M. [Ed.], pp. 99-112, Academic Publishers Sedno, Warszawa.
• 22. Nilsson M., Soli S. D., Sullivan J. A. (1994), Development of the Hearing In Noise Test or the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
• 23. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sęk A., Wicher A. (2007), Polish Sentence Test for speech intelligibility measurements in masking conditions, 19th International Congress on Acoustics, 2-7 September 2007, Madrid, Spain.
• 24. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sęk A., Wicher A. (2009), Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibilityof speech in interfering noise, International Journal of Audiology, 48, 433-443.
• 25. Ozimek E., Warzybok A., Kutzner D. (2010), Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 49, 444-454.
• 26. PN-EN ISO 8253-2 (2010), Acoustics. Audiometric test methods. Part 2: Sound field audiometry with pure-tone and narrow-band test.
• 27. Pruszewicz A., Surmanowicz-Demenko G., JastrzębskaM. (2011), Polish tests for speech audiometry [in Polish], [in:] Selected problems of speech audiometry, Obrębowski A. [Ed.], pp. 95-96, Scientific Publishers of Karol Marcinkowski Medical University in Poznań, Poznań.
• 28. Puglisi G. E. et al. (2015), An Italian matrix sentencje test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 54, 2, 44-50.
• 29. Sęk A. (2016), Authors software for the Institute of Acoustics, AMU [Computer Software], version 1.0.6.0, Poznań.
• 30. Surmanowicz-Demenko G. (2011), Linguistic and phonetic basis of word tests [in Polish], [in:] Selected problems of speech audiometry, Obrębowski A. [Ed.], pp. 69-72, Scientific Publishers of Karol Marcinkowski Medical University in Poznań, Poznań.
• 31. Versfeld N. J., Daalder L., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. (2000), Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 3, 1671-1684.
• 32. Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek E., Boboshko M., Kollmeier B. (2015), Development of the Russian matrix sentence test, International Journal of Audiology, 54, 2, 35-43.
• 33. WHO/PDH/97.3, Report of the Informal Working Group on Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairment Programme Planning WHO (Geneva, 1991). With adaptation from Report of the First Informal Consultation on Future Programme Developments for the Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairment, World Health Organization, 23-24 January 1997, Geneva.
• 34. Wilson R. H. (2003), Development of a speech-inmultitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 14, 9, 453-470.
• 35. Wilson R. H., Burks C. A. (2005), Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol, Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 42, 6, 839-852.
• 36. Wilson R. H., Carnell C. S., Cleghorn A. L. (2007), The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 522-529.
• 37. Wilson R. H., McArdle R. (2005), Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system, Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 42, 4, 79-94.
• 38. Wilson R. H., McArdle R. A., Smith S. L. (2007), An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 844-856.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).