Auditory recognition of Persian digits in presence of speech-spectrum noise and multi-talker babble: a validation study

Abstract

Background and Aim: Digits are suitable speech materials for evaluating recognition of speech-in-noise in clients with the wide range of language abilities. Farsi Auditory Recognition of Digit-in-Noise (FARDIN) test has been deve­loped and validated in learning-disabled child­ren showing dichotic listening deficit. This stu­dy was conducted for further validation of FARDIN and to survey the effects of noise type on the recognition performance in individuals with sensory-neural hearing impairment.
 Methods: Persian monosyllabic digits 1−10 were extracted from the audio file of FARDIN test. Ten lists were compiled using a random order of the triplets. The first five lists were mixed with multi-talker babble noise (MTBN) and the second five lists with speech-spectrum noise (SSN). Signal- to- noise ratio (SNR) var­ied from +5 to −15 in 5 dB steps. 20 normal hearing and 19 hearing-impaired individuals participated in the current study.
 Results: Both types of noise could differentiate the hearing loss from normal hearing. Hearing-impaired group showed weaker performance for digit recognition in MTBN and SSN and needed 4−5.6 dB higher SNR (50%), compared to the normal hearing group. MTBN was more challenging for normal hearing than SSN.
 Conclusion: Farsi Auditory Recognition of Digit-in-Noise is a validated test for estimating SNR (50%) in clients with hearing loss. It seems SSN is more appropriate for using as a back­ground noise for testing the performance of aud­itory recognition of digit-in-noise.
 
 Keywords: Auditory recognition; hearing loss; speech perception in noise; digit recognition in noise

Efficacy of the Digit-in-Noise Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The study quality calculated by the PEDro checklist showed a mean score of 6.64 (standard deviation [SD]: 1.15, range: 4-8 scores). Twelve of the 14 studies were ranked as “good,” with total values of 6 to 8 [ 3 - 4 , 6 - 8 , 10 - 16 ]. The remaining two studies [ 5 , 9 ] were evaluated as “fair,” with scores between 4 and 5.…”

“…The PICOS criteria of the reviewed articles are summarized in Table 3 . In most of the articles, participants consisted either of adults with normal hearing [ 3 , 7 , 9 , 12 - 13 , 15 ] or adults with hearing loss [ 3 - 6 , 14 , 16 ]. Potgieter, et al’s [ 10 ] study tested adults with both normal hearing and hearing loss.…”

“…Most of the studies concentrated on young adults [ 7 , 9 , 12 - 13 , 15 ], old adults [ 3 , 14 , 16 ], middle-aged adults [ 6 ], both young and middle-aged adults [ 8 ], and both young and old adults [ 4 - 5 , 10 ]. Unfortunately, the study conducted by Smits, et al [ 11 ] did not mention the age of the “ears.”…”

Optimization of the Speech Test Material in a Group of Hearing Impaired Subjects: A Feasibility Study for Multilingual Digit Triplet Test Development

“…Digit triplets also reveal very high correlation with the sentence test, despite not reflecting the general phoneme distribution of a given language [ 30 , 33 ]. In addition to the Dutch language [ 30 , 31 ], the versions of the triplet test were also prepared for Canadian English [ 34 , 35 ], Danish [ 36 ], American English [ 37 , 38 ], German [ 33 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], British English [ 42 , 43 ], Polish [ 32 ], French [ 44 ], New Zealand English [ 45 ], Swedish and Greek (unpublished, given after [ 23 ]), Finnish [ 46 ], Russian [ 47 ], Malay [ 48 ], South African English [ 24 ], Canadian French [ 35 ], Persian [ 49 ] and Korean [ 50 ]. The multiplicity of language versions indicates digit triplet test usability.…”

“…However, the adaptive optimization is feasible only if the item-specific SRT differences in normal-hearing subjects are consistent with those in hearing-impaired subjects. As the literature data on these differences are limited and ambiguous [ 38 , 49 , 53 , 54 ] more detailed studies are required. In the case of the digit triplet test, besides the digit-specific SRT, the digit position-specific SRT must also be considered.…”