How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise?

Objective: The current study investigates the extent to which the linguistic complexity of three commonly employed speech recognition tests and second language proficiency influence speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) in noise in non-native listeners. Design: SRTs were measured for non-natives and natives using three German speech recognition tests: the digit triplet test (DTT), the Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA), and the Göttingen sentence test (GÖSA). Study sample: Sixty-four non-native and eight native listeners participated. Results: Non-natives can show native-like SRTs in noise only for the linguistically easy speech material (DTT). Furthermore, the limitation of phonemic-acoustical cues in digit triplets affects speech recognition to the same extent in non-natives and natives. For more complex and less familiar speech materials, non-natives, ranging from basic to advanced proficiency in German, require on average 3-dB better signal-to-noise ratio for the OLSA and 6-dB for the GÖSA to obtain 50% speech recognition compared to native listeners. Conclusions: In clinical audiology, SRT measurements with a closed-set speech test (i.e. DTT for screening or OLSA test for clinical purposes) should be used with non-native listeners rather than open-set speech tests (such as the GÖSA or HINT), especially if a closed-set version in the patient's own native language is available.

[1]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Development of the Russian matrix sentence test , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[3]  Heleen Luts,et al.  The French digit triplet test: A hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[4]  J D Durrant,et al.  Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

[5]  J. Festen,et al.  The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[7]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Non-native speech perception in adverse conditions: A review , 2010, Speech Commun..

[10]  R. Smits,et al.  Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[12]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics1. , 2013, American journal of audiology.

[13]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  S Buus,et al.  Temporal gap detection in sensorineural and simulated hearing impairments. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[15]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[16]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment , 2014, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[18]  Birgitta Larsby,et al.  A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[19]  Jan Wouters,et al.  FIST: A French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[20]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Some thoughts on communication handicap and hearing impairment , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[22]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[23]  F. Rudmin,et al.  Speech reception thresholds for digits. , 1987, The Journal of auditory research.

[24]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Mary Florentine,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise for native and non‐native listeners , 1984 .

[26]  Lao Juan,et al.  Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring Instructors' Attitudes toward Concept-Based or Reform-Oriented Teaching of Introductory Statistics in the Health and Behavioral Sciences , 2010, 1007.3219.

[27]  Bruce A. Schneider,et al.  Do nonnative listeners benefit as much as native listeners from spatial cues that release speech from masking? , 2010, Speech Commun..

[28]  Lu-Feng Shi,et al.  Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language listeners’ recognition of English words in competing signals , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[29]  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.

[30]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Performance of Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers of English and Spanish on the Synthetic Sentence Identification Test , 1997 .

[32]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[33]  Aleksander Sek,et al.  Development and evaluation of Polish digit triplet test for auditory screening , 2009, Speech Commun..

[34]  Amos Paran Bottom-up and Top-down processing , 1997 .

[35]  J. S. Anderson Development of the hearing , 1910 .

[36]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[37]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  Kirsten C. Wagener,et al.  Ziffern-Tripel-Test: Sprachverständlichkeitstest über das Telefon , 2005 .

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

[40]  M. Akeroyd Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[41]  S Buus,et al.  Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[42]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multi-center study , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[43]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[44]  Charles Speaks,et al.  Method for Measurement of Speech Identification , 1965 .

[45]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: The German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[46]  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.

[47]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test? , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[48]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  An Eye-Tracking Paradigm for Analyzing the Processing Time of Sentences with Different Linguistic Complexities , 2014, PloS one.

[49]  Tsuneo Yamada,et al.  Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: the case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/ , 2004, J. Phonetics.

[50]  Aleksander Sek,et al.  Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[51]  P. Van cauwenberge,et al.  Sensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human cochlea. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.