Lip-reading the BKB sentence lists: corrections for list and practice effects.

Two groups of 21 adult subjects with normal hearing viewed the video recordings of the Bamford-Kowal-Bench standard sentence lists issued by the EPI Group in 1986. Each subject viewed all of the 21 lists and attempted to write down the words contained in each sentence. One group lip-read the lists with no sound (the LR:alone condition). The other group also heard a sequence of acoustic pulses which were synchronized to the moments when the talker's vocal folds closed (the LR&Lx condition). Performance was assessed both by loose (KW(L)) and by tight (KW(T)) keyword scoring methods. Both scoring methods produced the same pattern of results: performance was better in the LR&Lx condition; performance in both conditions improved linearly with the logarithm of the list presentation order number; subjects who produced higher overall scores also improved more with experience of the lists. The data were described well by a logistic regression model which provided a formula which can be used to compensate for practice effects and for differences in difficulty between lists. Two simpler, but less accurate, methods for compensating for variation in inter-list difficulty are also described. A figure is provided which can be used to assess the significance of the difference between a pair of scores obtained from a single subject in any pair of presentation conditions.

[1]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1972, Predictive Analytics.

[2]  A. Macleod,et al.  A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[3]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[4]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. , 1983, British journal of audiology.

[5]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

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

[7]  John Bamford,et al.  Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children , 1979 .

[8]  B C Moore,et al.  Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. , 1985, British journal of audiology.

[9]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Benefit from binaural hearing aids in individuals with a severe hearing impairment. , 1988, British journal of audiology.

[10]  John Hinde,et al.  Statistical Modelling in GLIM. , 1989 .

[11]  K. Schaie,et al.  Psychometric Assessment of Dysfunction in Learning and Memory , 1979 .

[12]  Q. Summerfield,et al.  Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing adults. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  S Rosen,et al.  A video-recorded test of lipreading for British English. , 1982, British journal of audiology.

[14]  A. Macleod,et al.  Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. , 1987, British journal of audiology.

[15]  E Abberton,et al.  First applications of a new laryngograph. , 1971, Medical & biological illustration.

[16]  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.

[17]  J. Bamford,et al.  Pure tone audiograms from hearing-impaired children. II. Predicting speech-hearing from the audiogram. , 1981, British journal of audiology.