Audiogram-Average Methods and SRT Scores

Siegenthaler, Bruce M.; Strand, Richard

doi:10.1121/1.1919010

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carhart (1946) found correlation coefficients of 0.79 and 0.75 for flat audiograms and for hearing loss gradually increasing with frequency, respectively, but for marked high-frequency hearing loss the coefficient was only 0.29. Also Siegenthaler and Strand (1964) found the highest correlation coefficients for flat and gradually increasing hearing loss. However, their correlation coefficients for other types of audiograms did not fall below 0.6.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 91%

Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram

Smoorenburg

1992

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

227

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tone thresholds and speech-reception thresholds were measured in 200 individuals (400 ears) with noise-induced hearing loss. The speech-reception thresholds were measured in a quiet condition and in noise with a speech spectrum at levels of 35, 50, 65, and 80 dBA. The tone audiograms could be described by three principal components: hearing loss in the regions above 3 kHz, from 1 to 3 kHz and below 1 kHz; the speech thresholds could be described by two components: speech reception in quiet and speech reception in noise at 50-80 dBA. Hearing loss above 1 kHz was related to speech reception in noise; hearing loss at and below 1 kHz to speech reception in quiet. The correlation between the speech thresholds in quiet and in noise was only R = 0.45. An adequate predictor of the speech threshold in noise, the primary factor in the hearing handicap, was the pure-tone average at 2 and 4 kHz (PTA2,4, R = 0.72). The minimum value of the prediction error for any tone-audiometric predictor of this speech threshold was 1.2 dB (standard deviation). The prediction could not be improved by taking into account the critical ratio for low-frequency noise nor by its upward spread of masking. The prediction error is due to measurement error and to a factor common to both ears. The latter factor is ascribed to cognitive skill in speech reception. Hearing loss above 10 to 15 dB HL (hearing level) already shows an effect on the speech threshold in noise, a noticeable handicap is found at PTA2,4 = 30 dB HL.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 91%

Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram

Smoorenburg

1992

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

227

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 50% recognition score for numbers established the reference level for suprathreshold speech test. Siegenthaler and Strand (1964) reported in their study that SRTs measured with digit stimuli correlated most highly with the pure-tone average when compared to other SRT tests such as the No. 9.…”

Section: Previous Research/reports On Digitsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Speech Recognition Thresholds for Multilingual Populations

Ramkissoon

2001

Communication Disorders Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language-Hearing Association reported that 85% of audiologists were monolingual English-speakers. Speech audiometry is typically conducted with English materials. However, a large and growing segment of the U.S. population is from nonEnglish-speaking families. In the current climate, monolingual English-speaking audiologists who serve a rapidly growing minority population are ethically and legally challenged to develop valid speech audiometry tests. This article traces the development of speech audiometry in the United States and reports on the current status, focusing on the needs of a multilingual population in terms of measuring speech recognition threshold.Speech audiometry is an integral aspect of the basic audiological test battery. Diagnostic hearing tests for adults and children are incomplete without an assessment of hearing for complex signals such as speech. Although these kinds of tests are difficult to specify and standardize, speech audiometry continues to be important for several reasons (Lyregaard, 1997): First, speech signals represent the essence of the auditory stimulation that occurs in daily life. Second, the comprehension of speech is an important human faculty in society; in fact, the human auditory system appears to be particularly specialized for the perception of speech. Finally, clients receiving hearing tests are usually very familiar with the words used in speech audiometry. Speech audiometry thus has a high degree of face validity.The first tests of hearing were conducted with pure-tone signals. However, as researchers learned more about auditory function, they realized that discrete pure tones yielded limited clinical information. There was an obvious need to assess hearing with speech signals. One of the earliest speech tests, the Western Electric 4-C, used numbers (digits) to estimate the hearing loss for speech (speech threshold). Two monosyllabic digits from a set (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8) were paired to form each bisyllabic stimulus item. (Because 7 is already bisyllabic, it was not used.) A female talker produced each stimulus item individually (e.g., 5-2, 3-1), and a phonograph record delivered these digit-pairs at stepped intensity levels. The test began with one digit pair recorded at 30 dB. With each subsequent stimulus, the presentation level decreased by 3 dB until the threshold of audibility was reached. As a result, only hearing losses from 0 dB to 30 dB could be estimated (see Note).The 4-C phonograph equipment was criticized because of its limited intensity range and because it did not predict high-frequency hearing losses (Hudgins, Hawkins, Karlin, & Stevens, 1947). This criticism was not directed to the stimuli (digit-pairs). In fact, digit-pairs yielded a reliable measure of hearing loss even though the test items contained only seven vowels and nine consonants. This suggested that a complete representation of English sounds is not essential in threshold measurement. Because the spoken digits were simple and familiar to most listeners, they were an adequate measure of...

show abstract

“…This hypothesis reflects the content of the EC items, which concern speech communication in low-noise situations. Success in these situations should be determined mostly by midfrequency audibility (Siegenthaler and Strand, 1964). 2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiometric Correlates of the Unaided APHAB

Cox¹,

Alexander²,

Gray³

2003

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) is a self-report questionnaire that is used to quantify the impact of a hearing problem on an individual's daily life. In this investigation, the relationships were explored between typical clinical audiometric data and the four subscale scores of the APHAB administered in the unaided (without-amplification) condition. Sixty subjects provided APHAB scores, audiograms, and speech recognition data. Analyses revealed significant relationships between audiometric data and each of the three APHAB subscales that reflect speech communication (EC, RV, and BN). None of these subscales was significantly more strongly related to any specific audiological variable. However, the pattern of associations between audiometric variables and subscale scores was consistent with predictions based on item content for subscales EC and RV, but not for BN. As predicted, no relationship was found between audiometric data and scores for the Aversiveness subscale (AV). Even for the subscales with the strongest associations, differences in audiometric data could be used to explain half or less of the variance in self-report data.

show abstract

Audiogram-Average Methods and SRT Scores

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram

Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram

Speech Recognition Thresholds for Multilingual Populations

Audiometric Correlates of the Unaided APHAB

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About