Performance-intensity functions for normal-hearing adults and children using CASPA

Objectives—The Computer Aided Speech Perception Assessment (CASPA) is a clinical measure of speech recognition that uses ten-item, isophonemic word lists to derive performance-intensity (PI) functions for adult listeners. Because CASPA was developed for adults, the ability to obtain PI functions in children has not been directly evaluated. The current study sought to evaluate PI functions for adults and four age groups of children with normal hearing to compare speech recognition as a function of age using CASPA. Comparisons between age groups for scoring by words and phonemes correct were made to determine the relative benefits of available scoring methods in CASPA. Design—Speech recognition using CASPA was completed with twelve adults and four age groups of children (5-6, 7-8, 9-10, and 11-12 year-olds), each with twelve participants. Results were scored by the percentage of words, phonemes, consonants and vowels correct. All participants had normal hearing and age-appropriate speech production skills. Results—Adults had higher mean speech recognition scores than children in the 5-6 year-old and 7-8 year-old age groups when responses were scored by the percentage of words correct. However, only differences between the 5-6 year-olds and adults were statistically significant when responses were scored by the percentage of phonemes correct. Speech recognition scores decreased as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for both children and adults. However, the magnitude of degradation at poorer SNRs did not vary between adults and children, suggesting that mean differences could not be explained by interference from noise. Conclusions—Obtaining PI functions in noise using CASPA is feasible with children as young as 5 years-old. Statistically significant differences in speech recognition were observed between adults and the two youngest age groups of children when scored by the percentage of words correct. When results were scored by the percentage of phonemes correct, however, the only significant difference was between the youngest group of children and the adults. These results suggest that phoneme scoring may help to minimize differences between recognition scores between adults and children, since children may be more likely to provide responses that are phonemic approximations when words are outside their lexicon.

[1]  J Jerger,et al.  Diagnostic significance of PB word functions. , 1971, Archives of otolaryngology.

[2]  L. L. Elliott Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  D D Dirks,et al.  Accuracy of adaptive procedure estimates of PF-max level. , 1983, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[4]  Arthur Boothroyd,et al.  The performance/intensity function: an underused resource. , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[5]  F N Martin,et al.  A Survey of Audiological Practices in the United States. , 1994, American journal of audiology.

[6]  C L Mackersie,et al.  Evaluation of the Computer-assisted Speech Perception Assessment Test (CASPA). , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  A Markides,et al.  Whole-word scoring versus phoneme scoring in speech audiometry. , 1978, British journal of audiology.

[8]  W F Rintelmann,et al.  Articulation functions and test-retest performance of normal-hearing children on three speech discrimination tests: WIPI, PBK-50, and NV Auditory Test No. 6. , 1976, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  Gerald A. Studebaker,et al.  Audibility-Index Functions for the Connected Speech Test , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Effects of Presentation Level on Phoneme and Sentence Recognition in Quiet by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Stanley A Gelfand Tri-word presentations with phonemic scoring for practical high-reliability speech recognition assessment. , 2003, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  M. Ross,et al.  Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification. , 1971 .

[13]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[15]  S. Gelfand Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[16]  C. Johnson,et al.  Children's phoneme identification in reverberation and noise. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Age-related changes on a children's test of sensory-level speech perception capacity. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.