Amplitude (vu and rms) and Temporal (msec) Measures of Two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 Recordings

Wilson, Richard H.

doi:10.3766/jaaa.26.4.3

“…First, the vu meter is in effect a mechanical averager that has a time constant of 300 msec ( AE 10%), which basically means when the signal level is constant, it takes the monitor needle $300 msec to move full-scale from the resting point to 0 vu. Second, speech is basically an amplitude-modulated signal with monosyllabic words 500-600 msec in duration (Wilson 47 ) and no sustained amplitude longer than 100 msec. By contrast, the carrier phrases are 600-1000 msec with a somewhat more constant airstream that makes carrier phrases easier and a little more accurate than monosyllabic words to monitor on a vu meter.…”

Section: Appendix the Vu Metermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms

Wilson

¹

,

Sánchez

²

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the 1950s, with monitored live voice testing, the vu meter time constant and the short durations and amplitude modulation characteristics of monosyllabic words necessitated the use of the carrier phrase amplitude to monitor (indirectly) the presentation level of the words. This practice continues with recorded materials. To relieve the carrier phrase of this function, first the influence that the carrier phrase has on word recognition performance needs clarification, which is the topic of this study. Purpose Recordings of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by two female speakers were used to compare word recognition performances with and without the carrier phrases when the carrier phrase and test word were (1) in the same utterance stream with the words excised digitally from the carrier (VA-1 speaker) and (2) independent of one another (VA-2 speaker). The 50-msec segment of the vowel in the target word with the largest root mean square amplitude was used to equate the target word amplitudes. Research Design A quasi-experimental, repeated measures design was used. Study Sample Twenty-four young normal-hearing adults (YNH; M = 23.5 years; pure-tone average [PTA] = 1.3-dB HL) and 48 older hearing loss listeners (OHL; M = 71.4 years; PTA = 21.8-dB HL) participated in two, one-hour sessions. Data Collection and Analyses Each listener had 16 listening conditions (2 speakers × 2 carrier phrase conditions × 4 presentation levels) with 100 randomized words, 50 different words by each speaker. Each word was presented 8 times (2 carrier phrase conditions × 4 presentation levels [YNH, 0- to 24-dB SL; OHL, 6- to 30-dB SL]). The 200 recorded words for each condition were randomized as 8, 25-word tracks. In both test sessions, one practice track was followed by 16 tracks alternated between speakers and randomized by blocks of the four conditions. Central tendency and repeated measures analyses of variance statistics were used. Results With the VA-1 speaker, the overall mean recognition performances were 6.0% (YNH) and 8.3% (OHL) significantly better with the carrier phrase than without the carrier phrase. These differences were in part attributed to the distortion of some words caused by the excision of the words from the carrier phrases. With the VA-2 speaker, recognition performances on the with and without carrier phrase conditions by both listener groups were not significantly different, except for one condition (YNH listeners at 8-dB SL). The slopes of the mean functions were steeper for the YNH listeners (3.9%/dB to 4.8%/dB) than for the OHL listeners (2.4%/dB to 3.4%/dB) and were <1%/dB steeper for the VA-1 speaker than for the VA-2 speaker. Although the mean results were clear, the variability in performance differences between the two carrier phrase conditions for the individual participants and for the individual words was striking and was considered in detail. Conclusion The current data indicate that word recognition performances with and without the carrier phrase (1) were different when the carrier phrase and target word were produced in the same utterance with poorer performances when the target words were excised from their respective carrier phrases (VA-1 speaker), and (2) were the same when the carrier phrase and target word were produced as independent utterances (VA-2 speaker).

show abstract

“…The monitoring meter typically is a light bar that has a time constant of 350 ms, 610 ms [ANSI, 2010]). Most CNC monosyllabic words are 500-600 ms (Wilson, 2015), with the vowel segment half that duration (House, 1961). Vowels have a maximum, sustained amplitude that is usually ,100 ms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That standard specified that the 1000-Hz calibration tone be equal to the average peak deflection of the preliminary carrier phrase on a vu meter that in turn may be considered representative of the speech material immediately following [the carrier phrase] when the material is delivered in a natural manner at the same communication level as the carrier phrase (ANSI, 2010: p. 18). As Wilson (2015) noted, this calibration protocol is a carryover from the early days of radio for which the vu meter was developed to standardize the target levels of speech materials for transmission line and radio broadcast purposes (Chinn et al, 1940).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm

Wilson

¹

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Auditec of St. Louis and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recorded versions of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) are in common usage. Data on young adults with normal hearing for pure tones (YNH) demonstrate equal recognition performances on the two versions when the VA version is presented 5 dB higher but similar data on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (OHL) are lacking.To compare word-recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions of NU-6 presented at six presentation levels with YNH and OHL listeners.A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.Twelve YNH (M = 24.0 years; PTA = 9.9-dB HL) and 36 OHL listeners (M = 71.6 years; PTA = 26.7-dB HL) participated in three, one-hour sessions.Each listener received 100 stimulus words that were randomized by 6 presentation levels for each of two speakers (YNH, −2 to 28-dB SL; OHL, −2 to 38-dB SL). The sessions were limited to 25 practice and 400 experimental words. Digital versions of the 16, 25-word tracks for each session were alternated between speakers.Each of the 48 listeners had higher recognition performances on the Auditec version of NU-6 than on the VA version. The respective overall recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions were 71.4% and 64.1% (YNH) and 68.7% and 58.2% (OHL). At the highest presentation levels, recognition performances on the two versions differed by only 0.5% (YNH) and 3.3% (OHL). At the 50% correct point, performances on the Auditec version were 3.2 dB (YNH) and 6.1 dB (OHL) better than those on the VA version. The slopes at the 50% points on the mean functions for both speakers were about 4.9%/dB (YNH) and 3.0%/dB (OHL); however, the slopes evaluated from the individual listener data were steeper, 5.2 to 5.3%/dB (YNH) and 3.3 to 3.5%/dB (OHL). When the individual data were transformed from dB SL to dB HL, the differences between the two listener groups were emphasized. The four functions (2 speakers by 2 listener groups) were plotted for each of the 48 participants and each of the 200 words, which revealed the gamut of relations among the datasets. Examination of the data for each speaker across test sessions, in the traditional 50-word lists, and in the typically used 25-word lists of Randomization A revealed no differences of clinical concern. Finally, introspective reports from the listeners revealed that 91.7% and 83.3% of the YNH and OHL listeners, respectively, thought the Auditec speaker was easier to understand than the VA speaker. Recognition performances on each participant and on each word are presented.

show abstract

“…The waveforms of a word typically can be characterized as having a large amplitude-modulation component that has a major influence on most overall word amplitude measures like root-mean-square (rms) and vu levels. In speech audiometry, the amplitudes of materials are set traditionally with a vu meter, which is basically a mechanical average with a time constant of approximately 300 to 350 ms. 22 The intended application of the vu meter was monitoring the signal level in broadcast and transmission line applications, not the precise measurement of signal level (Wilson 23 provides a recent review of the vu meter). Most often the target words have sustained amplitudes whose durations are shorter than the time constant of the vu meter.…”

Section: Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Characteristics of Spanish Monosyllabic, Bisyllabic, and Trisyllabic Words for Use in Word-Recognition Protocols

Carlo

¹

,

Wilson

²

,

Villanueva-Reyes

³

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background English materials for speech audiometry are well established. In Spanish, speech-recognition materials are not standardized with monosyllables, bisyllables, and trisyllables used in word-recognition protocols. Purpose This study aimed to establish the psychometric characteristics of common Spanish monosyllabic, bisyllabic, and trisyllabic words for potential use in word-recognition procedures. Research Design Prospective descriptive study. Study Sample Eighteen adult Puerto Ricans (M = 25.6 years) with normal hearing [M = 7.8-dB hearing level (HL) pure-tone average] were recruited for two experiments. Data Collection and Analyses A digital recording of 575 Spanish words was created (139 monosyllables, 359 bisyllables, and 77 trisyllables), incorporating materials from a variety of Spanish word-recognition lists. Experiment 1 (n = 6) used 25 randomly selected words from each of the three syllabic categories to estimate the presentation level ranges needed to obtain recognition performances over the 10 to 90% range. In Experiment 2 (n = 12) the 575 words were presented over five 1-hour sessions using presentation levels from 0- to 30-dB HL in 5-dB steps (monosyllables), 0- to 25-dB HL in 5-dB steps (bisyllables), and −3- to 17-dB HL in 4-dB steps (trisyllables). The presentation order of both the words and the presentation levels were randomized for each listener. The functions for each listener and each word were fit with polynomial equations from which the 50% points and slopes at the 50% point were calculated. Results The mean 50% points and slopes at 50% were 8.9-dB HL, 4.0%/dB (monosyllables), 6.9-dB HL, 5.1%/dB (bisyllables), and 1.4-dB HL, 6.3%/dB (trisyllables). The Kruskal–Wallis test with Mann–Whitney U post-hoc analysis indicated that the mean 50% points and slopes at the 50% points of the individual word functions were significantly different among the syllabic categories. Although significant differences were observed among the syllabic categories, substantial overlap was noted in the individual word functions, indicating that the psychometric characteristics of the words were not dictated exclusively by the syllabic number. Influences associated with word difficulty, word familiarity, singular and plural form words, phonetic stress patterns, and gender word patterns also were evaluated. Conclusion The main finding was the direct relation between the number of syllables in a word and word-recognition performance. In general, words with more syllables were more easily recognized; there were, however, exceptions. The current data from young adults with normal hearing established the psychometric characteristics of the 575 Spanish words on which the formulation of word lists for both threshold and suprathreshold measures of word-recognition abilities in quiet and in noise and other word-recognition protocols can be based.

show abstract

Amplitude (vu and rms) and Temporal (msec) Measures of Two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 Recordings

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms

Effects of the Carrier Phrase on Word Recognition Performances by Younger and Older Listeners Using Two Stimulus Paradigms

A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm

Psychometric Characteristics of Spanish Monosyllabic, Bisyllabic, and Trisyllabic Words for Use in Word-Recognition Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About