The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test.

PURPOSE In this study, the authors aimed to develop a visual analogue of the widely used Speech Reception Threshold (SRT; R. Plomp & A. M. Mimpen, 1979b) test. The Text Reception Threshold (TRT) test, in which visually presented sentences are masked by a bar pattern, enables the quantification of modality-aspecific variance in speech-in-noise comprehension to obtain more insight into interindividual differences in this ability. METHOD Using an adaptive procedure similar to the SRT test, the TRT test determines the percentage of unmasked text needed to read 50% of sentences correctly. SRTs in stationary noise (SRT(STAT)), modulated noise (SRT(MOD)), and TRTs were determined for 34 participants with normal hearing, aged 19 to 78 years. RESULTS The results indicate that about 30% of the variance in SRT(STAT) and SRT(MOD) is shared with variance in TRT, which reflects the shared involvement of a modality-aspecific cognitive or linguistic ability in forming meaningful wholes of fragments of sentences. CONCLUSION The TRT test, a visual analogue of the SRT test, has been developed to measure the variance in speech-in-noise comprehension associated with modality-aspecific cognitive skills. In future research, normative data of the TRT test should be developed. It would also be interesting to measure TRTs of individuals experiencing difficulties understanding speech.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  C. Watson,et al.  Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[6]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Moran,et al.  Sensation and perception , 1980 .

[9]  L. Humes Do ‘Auditory Processing’ Tests Measure Auditory Processing in the Elderly? , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[10]  石原 忍,et al.  The series of plates designed as a test for colour deficiency , 2007 .

[11]  Jason W. Osbourne,et al.  Four Assumptions of Multiple Regression That Researchers Should Always Test. , 2002 .

[12]  A. Duquesnoy The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  D. McFarland,et al.  Modality Specificity as a Criterion for Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorders , 1995 .

[14]  S. T. Goverts,et al.  The relationship between nonverbal cognitive functions and hearing loss. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[15]  Kathleenl N. Lohr,et al.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[16]  D. Streiner,et al.  Methodological issues in assessing reproducibility--a comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat ELISA serologic tests for Lyme disease. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[18]  Björn Hagerman,et al.  Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects: Umbral de reconocimiento del lenguaje para sujetos hipoacúsicos en medio de ruido parcial o completamente modulado , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[19]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  K. Grant,et al.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.