Critical Difference Table for Word Recognition Testing Derived Using Computer Simulation

Carney, Edward; Schlauch, Robert S.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/084)

Cited by 62 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Critical difference scores at a 95% confidence level (Carney and Schlauch, 2007) were derived based a list length of n = 50 for the vowel test and n = 100 for the consonant test. The total items on the vowel and consonant tests in this study were n = 54…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individual scores are shown in ascending order. The dashed line indicates the 95% confidence interval (Carney and Schlauch, 2007). Significant differences based on a 95% confidence interval are marked by the asterisks.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 4.15 shows the individual difference scores using the conventional and frequency-compression hearing aid after two months for the vowel recognition test. The critical difference scores were calculated based on a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance was defined as p < .05 (Carney and Schlauch, 2007). The critical differences for percent correct were derived from a list length of n = 50 items, representing the 54 items used in this vowel perception test.…”

Section: Vowel Recognition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The y-axis displays the mean difference in performance between the conventional and frequency-compression hearing aid at two months. Critical difference scores at a 95% confidence level (Carney and Schlauch, 2007) were used to determine if scores were significantly different between the two conditions.…”

Section: Consonant Recognition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

Perreau¹,

Bentler²,

Tyler³

2013

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-lowering signal processing in hearing aids has re-emerged as an option to improve audibility of the high frequencies by expanding the input bandwidth.However, few studies have investigated the usefulness of the scheme as a bimodal option for cochlear implant users. In this study, that question was posed. It was hypothesized that, following fitting and a period of adjustment to a frequency-compression hearing aid, sound localization and speech perception would be improved compared to conventional amplification. More specifically, more high-frequency cues would be perceived in the hearing aid ear using frequency compression, thereby providing better sensitivity to interaural level differences when a cochlear implant is used contralaterally.There were two experiments in this study. In the first experiment, the goal was to determine if frequency compression was a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. Performance was assessed on tests of sound localization, speech perception in a background of noise, and using questionnaires. Ten subjects with a cochlear implant plus hearing aid participated in experiment one. In the second experiment, the goal was to determine the impact of frequency compression on speech perception in quiet. Consonant and vowel perception in quiet was assessed using the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid. Seventeen adult subjects participated in the second experiment.In both experiments, subjects alternated daily between a frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid for two months. The parameters of frequency compression were set individually for each subject and audibility was measured for the frequency compression and conventional hearing aid programs by comparing estimations of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) using a modified algorithm (Bentler, R., Cole, B., Wu, Y-H. (2011, March). Deriving an audibility index for frequency-lowered hearing aids.Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, 2 AZ). In both experiments, the outcome measures were administered following the hearing aid fitting to establish baseline performance and after two months of use.Results revealed no significant difference between the frequency-compression and conventional hearing aid on tests of localization and consonant recognition. Spondee-innoise and vowel perception scores were significantly higher with the conventional hearing aid compared to the frequency-compression hearing aid after two months of use.These results suggest that, for the subjects in this study, frequency compression is not a better bimodal option than conventional amplification. In addition, speech perception may be negatively influenced by frequency compression because formant frequencies are too severely compressed and can no longer be distinguished.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vowel Recognition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consonant Recognition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

Perreau¹,

Bentler²,

Tyler³

2013

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following this line of reasoning, Shi (2011Shi ( , 2013) computed the monolingual average performance (98% correct), determined the 95% critical difference range for this average using the table by Carney and Schlauch (2007), who updated Thornton and Raffin's (1978) work via computer simulation, and took the lower end of the range (90% correct) to be the cutoff that defined the monolingual norm (MN). That is, a diagnosis of impaired word recognition is made for a monolingual listener who scores less than 90% correct in quiet.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How “Proficient” Is Proficient? Bilingual Listeners' Recognition of English Words in Noise

Shi

2015

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hearing loss and cognition: A protocol for ensuring speech understanding before neurocognitive assessment

Kolberg,

Morales,

Thallmayer

et al. 2023

Alzheimer's & Dementia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONMany neurocognitive evaluations involve auditory stimuli, yet there are no standard testing guidelines for individuals with hearing loss. The ensuring speech understanding (ESU) test was developed to confirm speech understanding and determine whether hearing accommodations are necessary for neurocognitive testing.METHODSHearing was assessed using audiometry. The probability of ESU test failure by hearing status was estimated in 2679 participants (mean age: 81.4 ± 4.6 years) using multivariate logistic regression.RESULTSOnly 2.2% (N = 58) of participants failed the ESU test. The probability of failure increased with hearing loss severity; similar results were observed for those with and without mild cognitive impairment or dementia.DISCUSSIONThe ESU test is appropriate for individuals who have variable degrees of hearing loss and cognitive function. This test can be used prior to neurocognitive testing to help reduce the risk of hearing loss and compromised auditory access to speech stimuli causing poorer performance on neurocognitive evaluation.

show abstract

Critical Difference Table for Word Recognition Testing Derived Using Computer Simulation

Abstract: Using the new table will provide more accurate estimates of the 95% critical range for successive administrations of word recognition tests.

Cited by 62 publications

References 20 publications

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

The Contribution of a Frequency-Compression Hearing Aid to Contralateral Cochlear Implant Performance

How “Proficient” Is Proficient? Bilingual Listeners' Recognition of English Words in Noise

Hearing loss and cognition: A protocol for ensuring speech understanding before neurocognitive assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About