Article PDF first page preview

Article PDF first page preview

Introduction: Purpose of our study was to compare two competing methods of performing bisyllabic word speech audiometry for the detection of the 50% speech reception threshold in noise (SRT50). Methods: Classic method is performed submitting multiple word lists at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. A newer Fast method – Italian Fast Speech Reception Threshold 50 (IFastSRT50) – is performed by means of program software with a single list of bisyllabic words and noise intensity shifting. Results: Means comparison between SRT50 Classic and IFastSRT50 shows a slight significant correlation (r = 0.263; p = 0.044) and a wide significant difference: SRT50 Classic = −2.763 dB (SD = 4.1) and IFastSRT50 = −7.803 dB (SD = 2.1) (p < 0.0001). There is a high difference between the test execution time means (SRT50 Classic = 11 min, IFastSRT50 = 2 min; p < 0.0001). The correlation between test results and execution times was higher for SRT50 Classic than IFastSRT50. Conclusion: IFastSRT50 test is a reliable method to quickly investigate signal-to-noise ratio needed to obtain 50% of recognition scores with bisyllabic words; it allows less execution time than SRT50 Classic method and can avoid patient fatigue and other limitations of different speech discrimination tests in noise as sentences based ones.

1.
Bernstein
JG
,
Summers
V
,
Grassi
E
,
Grant
KW
.
Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing
.
J Am Acad Audiol
.
2013
;
24
(
4
):
307
28
.
2.
Killion
MC
.
SNR loss: I can hear what people say, but I can’t understand them
.
Hear Rev
.
1997
;
4
(
12
):
8
14
.
3.
Nilsson
M
,
Soli
SD
,
Sullivan
JA
.
Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1994
;
95
(
2
):
1085
99
.
4.
Wilson
RH
,
Cates
WB
.
A comparison of two wordrecognition tasks in multitalker babble: speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN)
.
J Am Acad Audiol
.
2008
;
19
(
7
):
548
56
.
5.
Killion
MC
,
Niquette
PA
,
Gudmundsen
GI
,
Revit
LJ
,
Banerjee
S
.
Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2004
;
116
(
4 Pt 1
):
2395
405
.
6.
Brungart
DS
,
Sheffield
BM
,
Kubli
LR
.
Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2014
;
136
(
2
):
777
90
.
7.
Hagerman
B
.
Some aspects of methodology in speech audiometry
.
Scand Audiol
.
1984
;
21
:
1
25
.
8.
Hernvig
LH
,
Olsen
SO
.
Learning effect when using the Danish Hagerman sentences (Dantale II) to determine speech reception thresh- old
.
Int J Audiol
.
2005
;
44
(
9
):
509
12
.
9.
Wagener
K
,
Zokoll
M
,
Berg
D
.
D-1-9: report on an optimized inventory of speech-based auditory screening & impairment tests for six languages
.
Hear Com FP6–004171
.
2009
:
1
20
.
10.
Puglisi
GE
,
Di Berardino
F
,
Montuschi
C
,
Sellami
F
,
Albera
A
,
Zanetti
D
, et al
.
Evaluation of Italian simplified matrix test for speech-recognition measurements in noise
.
Audiol Res
.
2021
;
11
(
1
):
73
88
.
11.
Canzi
P
,
Manfrin
M
,
Locatelli
G
,
Nopp
P
,
Perotti
M
,
Benazzo
M
.
Development of a novel Italian speech-in-noise test using a roving-level adaptive method: adult population-based normative data
.
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital
.
2016
;
36
(
6
):
506
12
.
12.
Turrini
M
,
Cutugno
F
,
Maturi
P
,
Prosser
S
,
Leoni
FA
,
Arslan
E
.
Bisyllabic words for speech audiometry: a new Italian material
.
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital
.
1993
;
13
(
1
):
63
77
.
13.
Cantore
I
,
Cianfrone
F
,
Tauro
F
,
Bevilacqua
P
,
De Carli
P
,
Bianco
F
, et al
.
Bone-anchored hearing devices for single-sided deafness: a new preoperative evaluation protocol and widening of indications proposal
.
Audiol Neurotol
.
2023
;
28
(
3
):
194
201
.
14.
Zekveld
AA
,
Kramer
SE
,
Festen
JM
.
Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response
.
Ear Hear
.
2011
;
32
(
4
):
498
510
.
15.
Bocca
E
,
Pellegrini
A
.
Studio statistico sulla composizione della fonetica della lingua italiana e sua applicazione pratica all’audiometria con la parola
.
Arch Ital Otol
.
1950
;
5
:
116
41
.
16.
Puglisi
GE
,
Warzybok
A
,
Hochmuth
S
,
Visentin
C
,
Astolfi
A
,
Prodi
N
, et al
.
An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise
.
Int J Audiol
.
2015
;
54
(
Suppl 2
):
44
50
.
17.
Holder
JT
,
Levin
LM
,
Gifford
RH
.
Speech recognition in noise for adults with normal hearing: agenormative performance for AzBio, BKB-SIN, and QuickSIN
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2018
;
39
(
10
):
e972
8
.
18.
Souza
PE
,
Turner
CW
.
Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss
.
J Speech Hear Res
.
1994
;
37
(
3
):
655
61
.
19.
Avan
P
,
Giraudet
F
,
Büki
B
.
Importance of binaural hearing
.
Audiol Neurootol
.
2015
;
20
(
Suppl 1
):
3
6
.
20.
Baguant
A
,
Schmerber
S
,
Baguant
K
,
Quatre
R
.
Binaural squelch effect in unilateral otosclerosis surgery: comparison of speech intelligibility in noise before-after surgery
.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
.
2022
;
279
(
3
):
1301
10
.
21.
Hougaard
DD
,
Boldsen
SK
,
Jensen
AM
,
Hansen
S
,
Thomassen
PC
.
A multicenter study on objective and subjective benefits with a transcutaneous bone-anchored hearing aid device: first Nordic results
.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
.
2017
;
274
(
8
):
3011
9
.
You do not currently have access to this content.