Speech Recognition in Noise Using Binaural Diotic and Antiphasic Digits-in-Noise in Children: Maturation and Self-Test Validity

Wolmarans, Jenique; Sousa, Karina C. De; Frisby, Caitlin; Mahomed-Asmail, Faheema; Smits, Cas; Moore, David R.; Swanepoel, De Wet

doi:10.1055/s-0041-1727274

Cited by 9 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the SRT-values of the antiphasic procedure did not seem to be stable after a training phase with 21 trials, and a training effect seemed to be present between the first and the second antiphasic test. When looking into other research that uses SPIN tests with dichotic stimuli, no reports could be found about the training time needed for a dichotic test ( de Sousa et al, 2020 ; Smits et al, 2016 ; Wolmarans et al, 2021 ). However, a complete second training phase would increase the test by around 1 min, leaving the test duration at around 5 min, similar to the duration of the reference procedure with monaurally tested ears.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language-Independent Hearing Screening – Increasing the Feasibility of a Hearing Screening Self-Test at School-Entry

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A tablet-based language-independent self-test involving the recognition of ecological sounds in background noise, the Sound Ear Check (SEC), was adapted to make it feasible for young children. Two experiments were conducted. The first experiment investigated the SEC‘s feasibility, as well as its sensitivity and specificity for detecting childhood hearing loss with a monaural adaptive test procedure. In the second experiment, the SEC sounds, noise, and test format were adapted based on the findings of the first experiment. The adaptations were combined with three test procedures, one similar to the one used in Experiment 1, one presenting the sounds dichotically in diotic noise, and one presenting all the sounds with a fixed signal-to-noise ratio and a stopping rule. Results in young children show high sensitivity and specificity to detect different grades of conductive and sensorineural hearing loss (70–90%). When using an adaptive, monaural procedure, the test duration was approximately 6 min, and 17% of the results obtained were unreliable. Adaptive staircase analyses showed that the unreliable results probably occur due to attention/motivation loss. The test duration could be reduced to 3-4 min with adapted test formats without decreasing the test-retest reliability. The unreliable test results could be reduced from 17% to as low as 5%. However, dichotic presentation requires longer training, reducing the dichotic test format‘s feasibility.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language-Independent Hearing Screening – Increasing the Feasibility of a Hearing Screening Self-Test at School-Entry

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Childhood hearing screening programs could also benefit from this approach, considering that CHL linked with otitis media is more prevalent among children than adults. The simple test paradigm using familiar digits-in DIN tests allows for reliable responses in children as young as four years (Koopmans et al 2018; Wolmarans et al 2021), although young children may need an adult to facilitate the test procedure. Furthermore, suprathreshold testing provides the benefit of being less sensitive to ambient noise as school age-hearing screening is typically conducted outside a soundproof booth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diotic and Antiphasic Digits-in-noise Testing as a Hearing Screening and Triage Tool to Classify Type of Hearing Loss

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The digits-in-noise test (DIN) is a popular self-test measure that has traditionally been used to screen for hearing loss by providing either a pass or refer result. Standard approaches either tested each ear monaurally or used a binaural diotic version where identical digits and noise were presented simultaneously to both ears. Recently, a dichotic, antiphasic version was developed, increasing sensitivity of the DIN to unilateral or asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). The purpose of this study was to determine predictors and normative ranges of the antiphasic and diotic DIN and to determine if a combination of diotic and antiphasic DIN could accurately categorize hearing into (1) normal, (2) bilateral SNHL, or (3) unilateral SNHL or CHL. Design:The analytical sample consisted of 489 participants between the ages of 18 and 92 years with varying types, symmetry, and degrees of hearing loss. Degree and type of hearing loss were determined based on standard clinical four-frequency (0.5-4 kHz) pure-tone air and bone conduction threshold averages. The sample consisted of bilateral normal hearing (n = 293), bilateral SNHL (n = 172), unilateral SNHL (n = 42), and CHL (n = 32). All participants (n = 489) first completed an antiphasic DIN (digit stimuli 180° out-of-phase between ears), while 393 of the sample also completed a diotic DIN. Two procedures were assessed for their ability to categorize hearing into one of the three hearing groups. The first used a fixed antiphasic cutoff combined with a cutoff formed by a linear combination of antiphasic and diotic speech recognition threshold (SRT) or binaural intelligibility-level difference.Results: Poorer ear pure-tone average was the strongest predictor of antiphasic DIN score, whereas better ear pure-tone average explained more of the variance in diotic SRT. The antiphasic DIN sensitivity and specificity was 90% and 84%, respectively, for detecting hearing loss, with outstanding area under the receiver operating characteristics values exceeding 0.93 to identify hearing loss in the poorer ear. The first fixed SRT cutoff procedure could categorize 75% of all participants correctly, while the second procedure increased correct categorization to 79%. False negative rates for both procedures were below 10%. Conclusions:A sequential antiphasic and diotic DIN could categorize hearing to a reasonable degree into three groups of (1) normal hearing;(2) bilateral SNHL; and (3) unilateral asymmetric SNHL or CHL. This type of approach could optimize care pathways using remote and contactless testing, by identifying unilateral SNHL and CHL as cases requiring medical referral. In contrast, bilateral SNHL cases could be referred directly to an audiologist, or nontraditional models like OTC hearing aids.

show abstract

“…In a similar study, Wolmarans et al. (2021) used a digits-in-noise test implemented on a smartphone to test ∼600 school-going children aged 6–14 years with average hearing thresholds of ≤20 dB HL (calculated across 1, 2, and 4 kHz and left and right ears).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masked Speech Recognition by Normal-Hearing 6–13-Year-Olds in Conditions With and Without Interaural Difference Cues

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the Danish ‘børneDAT’ corpus, the current study aimed to (1) collect normative masked speech recognition data for 6–13-year-olds in conditions with and without interaural difference cues, (2) evaluate the test–retest reliability of these measurements, and (3) compare two widely used measures of binaural/spatial benefit in terms of the obtained scores. Seventy-four children and 17 young adults with normal hearing participated. Using headphone presentation, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were measured twice at two separate visits in four conditions. In the first two conditions, børneDAT sentences were presented in diotic stationary speech-shaped noise, with the sentences either interaurally in-phase (‘N0S0’) or interaurally out-of-phase (‘N0S180’). In the other two conditions, børneDAT sentences were simulated to come from 0° azimuth and two running speech maskers from either 0° azimuth (‘co-located’) or ±90° azimuth (‘spatially separated’). In relative terms, the children achieved lower SRTs in stationary noise than in competing speech, whereas the adults showed the opposite pattern. 12–13-year-old children achieved adult-like performance in all but the co-located condition. Younger children showed generally immature speech recognition abilities. Test–retest reliability was highest for the SRTs in stationary noise and lowest for the spatial benefit scores. Mean benefit was comparable for the two measures and participant groups, and the two sets of scores were not correlated with each other. Developmental effects were most pronounced in the conditions with interaural difference cues. In conclusion, reference data for the børneDAT corpus obtained under different acoustic conditions are available that can guide future research and potential clinical applications.

show abstract

Speech Recognition in Noise Using Binaural Diotic and Antiphasic Digits-in-Noise in Children: Maturation and Self-Test Validity

Cited by 9 publications

References 58 publications

Language-Independent Hearing Screening – Increasing the Feasibility of a Hearing Screening Self-Test at School-Entry

Language-Independent Hearing Screening – Increasing the Feasibility of a Hearing Screening Self-Test at School-Entry

Diotic and Antiphasic Digits-in-noise Testing as a Hearing Screening and Triage Tool to Classify Type of Hearing Loss

Masked Speech Recognition by Normal-Hearing 6–13-Year-Olds in Conditions With and Without Interaural Difference Cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About