Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST)

Cox, Robyn M.; Alexander, Genevieve C.; Gilmore, Christine

doi:10.1097/00003446-198710001-00010

Cited by 250 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

190

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After making the decision about the traits one wishes to estimate, another decision must be made about which test (i.e., measurement operation) to use as an estimate of each trait. For example, if an estimate of speech understanding in noise is desired, the test protocol developer can select from the Connected Speech Test (CST), (Cox et al, 1987a(Cox et al, , 1987b1989), the Hearing-in-Noise test (HINT), (Nilsson et al, 1994), the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test (Kalikow et al, 1977) along with many others. Note that these tests use psychophysical methods, wherein an acoustic stimulus is presented and the listener is asked to report the word(s) that he or she was able to hear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…different set of listeners and with different speech material (i.e., the CST of Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987). Most pertinent, though, is that the data indicate that for the 27 audiograms used in this study on MPT, both the Sherbecoe and Studebaker (2003) and the Ching et al (2011) desensitization factors yield near-identical reductions to the ANSI SII calculated values (within 1/100 hundredth units; Table 6).…”

Section: Is the Additional Audibility Prescribed By Dsl M[i/o] Usefulmentioning

confidence: 65%

Modern Prescription Theory and Application: Realistic Expectations for Speech Recognition With Hearing Aids

Johnson

2013

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major decision at the time of hearing aid fitting and dispensing is the amount of amplification to provide listeners (both adult and pediatric populations) for the appropriate compensation of sensorineural hearing impairment across a range of frequencies (e.g., 160-10000 Hz) and input levels (e.g., 50-75 dB sound pressure level). This article describes modern prescription theory for hearing aids within the context of a risk versus return trade-off and efficient frontier analyses. The expected return of amplification recommendations (i.e., generic prescriptions such as National Acoustic Laboratories-NonLinear 2, NAL-NL2, and Desired Sensation Level Multiple Input/Output, DSL m[i/o]) for the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and high-frequency audibility were traded against a potential risk (i.e., loudness). The modeled performance of each prescription was compared one with another and with the efficient frontier of normal hearing sensitivity (i.e., a reference point for the most return with the least risk). For the pediatric population, NAL-NL2 was more efficient for SII, while DSL m[i/o] was more efficient for high-frequency audibility. For the adult population, NAL-NL2 was more efficient for SII, while the two prescriptions were similar with regard to high-frequency audibility. In terms of absolute return (i.e., not considering the risk of loudness), however, DSL m[i/o] prescribed more outright high-frequency audibility than NAL-NL2 for either aged population, particularly, as hearing loss increased. Given the principles and demonstrated accuracy of desensitization (reduced utility of audibility with increasing hearing loss) observed at the group level, additional high-frequency audibility beyond that of NAL-NL2 is not expected to make further contributions to speech intelligibility (recognition) for the average listener.

show abstract

“…The strategy previously used to study SRI was to set the intensity of the presentation speech (5)(6)(7)(8)10,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) and present, at the same intensity, all sentences from a list, considering as correct answer, all sentences repeated correctly and as incorrect answer, a whole word or phrase incorrectly repeated (16) . Thus, each error or score corresponded to 10%, respectively, for each list is composed of 10 sentences.…”

Section: Old Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature reports different ways of interpreting individuals' performance in relation to speech recognition indexes (5)(6)(7)(8)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)25,26) . The LPP had been applied with the strategy that considered as correct answer only the full recognition of a sentence (20,27) .…”

Section: Development Of New Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this case, the coefficient of variation was lower in the analysis by word, which shows a more uniform performance of subjects. The literature reports that the strategy of score calculation in tests using sentences is not standardized, once it is possible to determine the subjects' answers by considering the whole sentence repeated correctly (16,18,19) , one target-word (25) , groups of keywords (15,16,30) , or by computing each word composing the sentence (5)(6)(7)(8)18) . As there is no consensus on the best strategy to calculate scores, it could be good to keep a written copy of the subjects' answers to develop a new score protocol, once the answers could be analyzed by different strategies and the errors of each subject could be verified (4) .…”

Section: Application Of New Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proposal for implementing the Sentence Recognition Index in individuals with hearing disorders

Costa¹,

Santos²,

Lessa

et al. 2015

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To present and describe a new strategy and protocol for obtaining the Sentences Recognition Indexes (SRI), using the Lists of Phrases in Portuguese test (LPP), considering words in the analysis of responses; to analyze and compare the results using the previous and the new strategies by checking their applicability and suitability. Methods: To consider each word of the sentence, words were classified according to their importance: functional and content words, assigning them, respectively, two and one points. SRI were obtained in 33 normal hearing adults, and results were compared using the two strategies. Results: A new protocol was established. Each point corresponds to the following percentages in each list: 1B, 1.11%; 2B, 1.13%; 3B, 1.17%; 4B, 1.16%; 5B, 1.20%; and 6B, 1.11%. The median SRI obtained through usual and new strategies were, respectively, for the list 1B: 60 and 82.57%; 2B: 70 and 80.79%; 3B: 50 and 76.60%; 4B: 70 and 82.60%; 5B: 50 and 77.20%; and 6B: 60 and 82.14%. A significant difference was found when these strategies were compared. Conclusion: New strategy and protocol for evaluating the SRI were developed using the LPP test, considering each word of the sentence. When comparing the responses it was noticed that when considering each word in the sentence it is possible to scale, more detailed and less variability, the actual ability to recognize speech of each individual, the new strategy and protocol developed confirmed its applicability and suitability to assess Sentence Recognition Indexes in Quiet in individuals with hearing disorders in a specific listening condition.

show abstract

Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST)

Cited by 250 publications

References 0 publications

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Modern Prescription Theory and Application: Realistic Expectations for Speech Recognition With Hearing Aids

Proposal for implementing the Sentence Recognition Index in individuals with hearing disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About