Objective: The purpose was to determine if speech-recognition performances were the same when the speech level was fixed and the noise level varied as when the noise level was fixed and the speech level varied. Design: A descriptive/quasi-experimental experiment was conducted with Lists 3 and 4 of the revised speech perception in noise (R-SPIN) test, which involves high predictability (HP) and low predictability (LP) words. The R-SPIN was modified into a multiple signal-to-noise paradigm (23- to -1-dB in 3-dB decrements) from which the 50% points were calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation. Study sample: Sixteen young listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with pure-tone hearing losses participated. Results: The listeners with normal hearing performed better than the listeners with hearing loss on both the HP and LP conditions. For both groups of listeners, (1) performance on the HP sentences was better than on the LP sentences, and (2) the mean 50% points were 0.1 to 0.4 dB lower (better) on the speech-variable, babble-fixed condition than on the speech-fixed, babble-variable condition. Conclusions: For practical purposes the ≤0.4-dB differences are not considered noteworthy as the differences are smaller than the decibel value of one word on the test (0.6 dB).

Background: The Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) is a word-recognition instrument that presents the 200 Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) words binaurally at 50 dB HL in a multitalker babble at a 9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) (Cord et al, 1992). The SPRINT was developed by and used by the Army as a more valid predictor of communication abilities (than pure-tone thresholds or word-recognition in quiet) for issues involving fitness for duty from a hearing perspective of Army personnel. The Words-in-Noise test (WIN) is a slightly different word-recognition task in a fixed level multitalker babble with 10 NU-6 words presented at each of 7 S/N from 24 to 0 dB S/N in 4 dB decrements (Wilson, 2003; Wilson and McArdle, 2007). For the two instruments, both the babble and the speakers of the words are different. The SPRINT uses all 200 NU-6 words, whereas the WIN uses a maximum of 70 words. Purpose: The purpose was to compare recognition performances by 24 young listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing on the SPRINT and WIN protocols. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, mixed model design was used. Study Sample: The 24 young listeners with normal hearing (19 to 29 years, mean = 23.3 years) were from the local university and had normal hearing (≤20 dB HL; American National Standards Institute, 2004) at the 250-8000 Hz octave intervals. The 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (60 to 82 years, mean = 69.9 years) had the following inclusion criteria: (1) a threshold at 500 Hz between 15 and 30 dB HL, (2) a threshold at 1000 Hz between 20 and 40 dB HL, (3) a three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) of ≤40 dB HL, (4) word-recognition scores in quiet ≥40%, and (5) no history of middle ear or retrocochlear pathology as determined by an audiologic evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis: The speech materials were presented bilaterally in the following order: (1) the SPRINT at 50 dB HL, (2) two half lists of NU-6 words in quiet at 60 dB HL and 80 dB HL, and (3) the two 35-word lists of the WIN materials with the multitalker babble fixed at 60 dB HL. Data collection occurred during a 40-60 minute session. Recognition performances on each stimulus word were analyzed. Results: The listeners with normal hearing obtained 92.5% correct on the SPRINT with a 50% point on the WIN of 2.7 dB S/N. The listeners with hearing loss obtained 65.3% correct on the SPRINT and a WIN 50% point at 12.0 dB S/N. The SPRINT and WIN were significantly correlated (r = -0.81, p < .01), indicating that the SPRINT had good concurrent validity. The high-frequency, pure-tone average (1000, 2000, 4000 Hz) had higher correlations with the SPRINT, WIN, and NU-6 in quiet than did the traditional three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz). Conclusions: Graphically and numerically the SPRINT and WIN were highly related, which is indicative of good concurrent validity of the SPRINT.

Purpose: To analyze the 50% correct recognition data that were from the Wilson et al (this issue) study and that were obtained from 24 listeners with normal hearing; also to examine whether acoustic, phonetic, or lexical variables can predict recognition performance for monosyllabic words presented in speech-spectrum noise. Research Design: The specific variables are as follows: (a) acoustic variables (i.e., effective root-mean-square sound pressure level, duration), (b) phonetic variables (i.e., consonant features such as manner, place, and voicing for initial and final phonemes; vowel phonemes), and (c) lexical variables (i.e., word frequency, word familiarity, neighborhood density, neighborhood frequency). Data Collection and Analysis: The descriptive, correlational study will examine the influence of acoustic, phonetic, and lexical variables on speech recognition in noise performance. Results: Regression analysis demonstrated that 45% of the variance in the 50% point was accounted for by acoustic and phonetic variables whereas only 3% of the variance was accounted for by lexical variables. These findings suggest that monosyllabic word-recognition-in-noise is more dependent on bottom-up processing than on top-down processing. Conclusions: The results suggest that when speech-in-noise testing is used in a pre- and post-hearing-aid-fitting format, the use of monosyllabic words may be sensitive to changes in audibility resulting from amplification.

Background: So that portions of the classic Miller, Heise, and Lichten (1951) study could be replicated, new recorded versions of the words and digits were made because none of the three common monosyllabic word lists (PAL PB-50, CID W-22, and NU-6) contained the 9 monosyllabic digits (1-10, excluding 7) that were used by Miller et al. It is well established that different psychometric characteristics have been observed for different lists and even for the same materials spoken by different speakers. The decision was made to record four lists of each of the three monosyllabic word sets, the monosyllabic digits not included in the three sets of word lists, and the CID W-1 spondaic words. A professional female speaker with a General American dialect recorded the materials during four recording sessions within a 2-week interval. The recording order of the 582 words was random. Purpose: To determine - on listeners with normal hearing - the psychometric properties of the five speech materials presented in speech-spectrum noise. Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 23 years) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤20-dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) participated. The participants were university students who were unfamiliar with the test materials. Data Collection and Analysis: The 582 words were presented at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs; -7-, -2-, 3-, and 8-dB) in speech-spectrum noise fixed at 72-dB SPL. Although the main metric of interest was the 50% point on the function for each word established with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), the percentage correct on each word at each SNR was evaluated. The psychometric characteristics of the PB-50, CID W-22, and NU-6 monosyllabic word lists were compared with one another, with the CID W-1 spondaic words, and with the 9 monosyllabic digits. Results: Recognition performance on the four lists within each of the three monosyllabic word materials were equivalent, ±0.4 dB. Likewise, word-recognition performance on the PB-50, W-22, and NU-6 word lists were equivalent, ±0.2 dB. The mean recognition performance at the 50% point with the 36 W-1 spondaic words was ∼6.2 dB lower than the 50% point with the monosyllabic words. Recognition performance on the monosyllabic digits was 1-2 dB better than mean performance on the monosyllabic words. Conclusions: Word-recognition performances on the three sets of materials (PB-50, CID W-22, and NU-6) were equivalent, as were the performances on the four lists that make up each of the three materials. Phonetic/phonemic balance does not appear to be an important consideration in the compilation of word-recognition lists used to evaluate the ability of listeners to understand speech. A companion paper examines the acoustic, phonetic/phonological, and lexical variables that may predict the relative ease or difficulty for which these monosyllable words were recognized in noise (McArdle and Wilson, this issue).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine in listeners with normal hearing and listeners with sensorineural hearing loss the within- and between-group differences obtained with 4 commonly available speech-in-noise protocols. Method: Recognition performances by 24 listeners with normal hearing and 72 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were compared for 4 speech-in-noise protocols that varied with respect to the amount of contextual cues conveyed in the target signal. The protocols studied included the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (BKB-SIN; Etymōtic Research, 2005; J. Bench, A. Kowal, & J. Bamford, 1979; P. Niquette et al., 2003), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN; M. C. Killion, P. A. Niquette, G. I. Gudmundsen, L. J. Revit, & S. Banerjee, 2004), and the Words-in-Noise test (WIN; R. H. Wilson, 2003; R. H. Wilson & C. A. Burks, 2005), each of which used multitalker babble and a modified method of constants, as well as the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994), which used speech-spectrum noise and an adaptive psychophysical procedure. Results: The 50% points for the listeners with normal hearing were in the 1- to 4-dB signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) range and for the listeners with hearing loss in the 5- to 14-dB S/B range. Separation between groups was least with the BKB-SIN and HINT (4-6 dB) and most with the QuickSIN and WIN (8-10 dB). Conclusion: The QuickSIN and WIN materials are more sensitive measures of recognition performance in background noise than are the BKB-SIN and HINT materials.

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using digit triplets in multitalker babble as a paradigm to measure the ability of patients to understand speech in background noise. Nine digits (one to ten, excluding seven) were randomized into triplet sets and embedded in multitalker babble at 6- to -20-dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios. Recognition performances by 24 listeners with normal hearing and 48 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were measured for the digit triplets and for monosyllabic words both in multitalker babble presented at 80-dB SPL. There was essentially no overlap between the distributions of performances by the two groups of listeners on either of the materials. For both groups of listeners, the difference between performances on the materials at the 50% point was approximately 18 dB. Both the word and digit materials in a background of multitalker babble are sensitive to the inabilities of listeners with hearing loss to understand speech in background noise.

This investigation compared the auditory conceptualization ability (Lindamood and Lindamood, 1970) or vocal phonics (Van Riper, 1963) of third grade students with and without articulation deficits in an attempt to determine if a relationship exists between auditory conceptualization ability and articulation ability. The specific question posed was: Is there a statistically significant difference in auditory conceptualization ability between third grade children with various degrees of articulation deficits and third grade children without articulation deficits.

Because communication involves both a sender of messages, each person could influence the other’s feelings about speaking and listening. The reactions of each member of this communication network will determine how communication will flow in the future. With an understanding of the feedback system between speakers and listeners, researchers have designed management programs which allow the speaker who stutters to develop a new pattern of speech which does not hinder his communication efforts. Fluency is the primary consideration, and normalcy of speech is second. One such program has been devised by Casteel (1974). In Casteel’s stuttering management program a person moves through four stages of speaking to be fluent. The client learns to sacrifice specific components of speech and these components are systematically reinstated while fluency in reading, monologue, and dialogue are maintained. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine if breathy and imprecisely articulated speech (Stage III) interferes with the speaker’s ability to communicate.

No description available.

This thesis is composed of two independent manuscripts for publication. The first (Chapter 2) “More Detectable, Less Annoying. The Role of Temporal Variation in Envelope and Spectral Content on Detection and Annoyance” will be submitted to Psychological Science. This manuscript explores how detection and annoyance of sound are affected by temporal variation in two acoustic parameters; amplitude envelope and spectral content. The second (Chapter 3) “Improving Detectability of Auditory Interfaces Through Temporal Variation in Envelope” will be submitted to Human Factors. Here I build off of the previous manuscript by investigating tone detection in a split attention task more pertinent to the normative use of auditory interfaces. The author of this thesis is the primary author of both papers. / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc)