An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine in listeners with normal hearing and listeners with sensorineural hearing loss the within- and between-group differences obtained with 4 commonly available speech-in-noise protocols. METHOD Recognition performances by 24 listeners with normal hearing and 72 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were compared for 4 speech-in-noise protocols that varied with respect to the amount of contextual cues conveyed in the target signal. The protocols studied included the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (BKB-SIN; Etymōtic Research, 2005; J. Bench, A. Kowal, & J. Bamford, 1979; P. Niquette et al., 2003), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN; M. C. Killion, P. A. Niquette, G. I. Gudmundsen, L. J. Revit, & S. Banerjee, 2004), and the Words-in-Noise test (WIN; R. H. Wilson, 2003; R. H. Wilson & C. A. Burks, 2005), each of which used multitalker babble and a modified method of constants, as well as the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994), which used speech-spectrum noise and an adaptive psychophysical procedure. RESULTS The 50% points for the listeners with normal hearing were in the 1- to 4-dB signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) range and for the listeners with hearing loss in the 5- to 14-dB S/B range. Separation between groups was least with the BKB-SIN and HINT (4-6 dB) and most with the QuickSIN and WIN (8-10 dB). CONCLUSION The QuickSIN and WIN materials are more sensitive measures of recognition performance in background noise than are the BKB-SIN and HINT materials.

[1]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Rachel A McArdle,et al.  Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  H. Abrams,et al.  A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  J. P. Egan.  Articulation testing methods , 1948, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  W. D. Hanks,et al.  HINT list equivalency using older listeners. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  Current indications for upper-extremity powered components. , 1970, Bulletin of prosthetics research.

[7]  Richard H. Wilson,et al.  Learning effects associated with repeated word-recognition measures using sentence materials. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  H. Dillon,et al.  Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  J Bamford,et al.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[10]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Development of materials for speech audiometry. , 1952, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[11]  Richard H. Wilson,et al.  Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. , 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  R C Beattie,et al.  Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[13]  T W Tillman,et al.  Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[14]  H. Schuknecht,et al.  FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE PATHOLOGY OF PRESBYCUSIS. , 1964, Archives of otolaryngology.

[15]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  The Masking of Pure Tones and of Speech by White Noise , 1950 .

[16]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[17]  M. Killion,et al.  Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  D D Dirks,et al.  A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. , 1982, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[19]  Richard H. Wilson,et al.  The Use of Digit Triplets to Evaluate Word-Recognition Abilities in Multitalker Babble , 2004 .

[20]  Richard H. Wilson,et al.  Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  R. McArdle,et al.  Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN lists. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  D. J. Finney.  Statistical Method in Biological Assay , 1966 .

[23]  R. Frisina,et al.  Loss of Peripheral Right-Ear Advantage in Age-Related Hearing Loss , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[24]  Mead C. Killion,et al.  What can the pure‐tone audiogram tell us about a patient's SNR loss? , 2000 .

[25]  James Jerger,et al.  Bekesy Audiometry in Analysis of Auditory Disorders , 1960 .

[26]  R. Carhart,et al.  Development of test procedures for evaluation of binaural hearing aids. A final report. , 1976, Bulletin of prosthetics research.