A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).

BACKGROUND The Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) is a word-recognition instrument that presents the 200 Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) words binaurally at 50 dB HL in a multitalker babble at a 9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) (Cord et al, 1992). The SPRINT was developed by and used by the Army as a more valid predictor of communication abilities (than pure-tone thresholds or word-recognition in quiet) for issues involving fitness for duty from a hearing perspective of Army personnel. The Words-in-Noise test (WIN) is a slightly different word-recognition task in a fixed level multitalker babble with 10 NU-6 words presented at each of 7 S/N from 24 to 0 dB S/N in 4 dB decrements (Wilson, 2003; Wilson and McArdle, 2007). For the two instruments, both the babble and the speakers of the words are different. The SPRINT uses all 200 NU-6 words, whereas the WIN uses a maximum of 70 words. PURPOSE The purpose was to compare recognition performances by 24 young listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing on the SPRINT and WIN protocols. RESEARCH DESIGN A quasi-experimental, mixed model design was used. STUDY SAMPLE The 24 young listeners with normal hearing (19 to 29 years, mean = 23.3 years) were from the local university and had normal hearing (< or = 20 dB HL; American National Standards Institute, 2004) at the 250-8000 Hz octave intervals. The 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (60 to 82 years, mean = 69.9 years) had the following inclusion criteria: (1) a threshold at 500 Hz between 15 and 30 dB HL, (2) a threshold at 1000 Hz between 20 and 40 dB HL, (3) a three-frequency puretone average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) of < or = 40 dB HL, (4) word-recognition scores in quiet > or = 40%, and (5) no history of middle ear or retrocochlear pathology as determined by an audiologic evaluation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The speech materials were presented bilaterally in the following order: (1) the SPRINT at 50 dB HL, (2) two half lists of NU-6 words in quiet at 60 dB HL and 80 dB HL, and (3) the two 35-word lists of the WIN materials with the multitalker babble fixed at 60 dB HL. Data collection occurred during a 40-60 minute session. Recognition performances on each stimulus word were analyzed. RESULTS The listeners with normal hearing obtained 92.5% correct on the SPRINT with a 50% point on the WIN of 2.7 dB S/N. The listeners with hearing loss obtained 65.3% correct on the SPRINT and a WIN 50% point at 12.0 dB S/N. The SPRINT and WIN were significantly correlated (r = -0.81, p < .01), indicating that the SPRINT had good concurrent validity. The high-frequency, pure-tone average (1000, 2000, 4000 Hz) had higher correlations with the SPRINT, WIN, and NU-6 in quiet than did the traditional three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz). CONCLUSIONS Graphically and numerically the SPRINT and WIN were highly related, which is indicative of good concurrent validity of the SPRINT.

[1]  J. Harris,et al.  PURE-TONE ACUITY AND THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF EVERYDAY SPEECH. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Karl D. Kryter,et al.  Auditory Acuity and the Perception of Speech , 1962 .

[3]  R. McArdle,et al.  Intra- and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  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.

[5]  R. H. Wilson,et al.  Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6: normative and comparative intelligibility functions. , 1976, Journal of the American Audiology Society.

[6]  R H Wilson,et al.  Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[7]  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.

[8]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  New speech-in-noise test in different types of hearing impairment. , 1997, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[10]  Wilson Rh,et al.  Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6: normative and comparative intelligibility functions. , 1976 .

[11]  R. McArdle,et al.  Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

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

[13]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[14]  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.

[15]  Rachel A McArdle,et al.  An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[16]  R. Sweetow,et al.  The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  A. N. Franzblau,et al.  A primer of statistics for non-statisticians. , 1958 .

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

[21]  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.

[22]  J. Żabiński American National Standards Institute (ANSI) , 2010 .