No description available.

Background: Johnson and Dillon (2011) provided a model-based comparison of current generic hearing aid prescriptive methods for adults with hearing loss based on the attributes of speech intelligibility, loudness, and bandwidth. Purpose: This study compared the National Acoustic Laboratories-Non-linear 2 (NAL-NL2) and Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2-High-Frequency (CAM2) prescriptive methods using adult participants with less high-frequency hearing loss than Johnson and Dillon (2011). Of study interest was quantification of prescribed audibility, speech intelligibility, and loudness. The preferences of participants for either NAL-NL2 or CAM2 and preferred deviations from prescribed settings are also reported. Research Design: Using a single-blind, counter-balanced, randomized design, preference judgments for the prescriptive methods with regard to sound quality of speech and music stimuli were obtained. Preferred gain adjustments from the prescription within the 4-10 kHz frequency range were also obtained from each participant. Speech intelligibility and loudness model calculations were completed on the prescribed and adjusted amplification. Study Sample: Fourteen male Veterans, whose average age was 65 yr and whose hearing sensitivity averaged normal to borderline normal through 1000 Hz sloping to a moderately severe sensorineural loss, served as participants. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a brief listening time (∼10 min), typical of an initial fitting visit, the participants made paired comparison of sound quality between the NAL-NL2 and CAM2 prescriptive settings. Participants were also asked to modify each prescription in the range of 4-10 kHz using an overall gain control and make subsequent comparisons of sound quality preference between prescriptive and adjusted settings. Participant preferences were examined with respect to quantitative analysis of loudness modeling, speech intelligibility modeling, and measured high-frequency bandwidth audibility. Results: Consistent with the lack of difference in predicted speech intelligibility between the two prescriptions, sound quality preferences on the basis of clarity were split across participants while some participants did not have a discernable preference. Considering sound quality judgments of pleasantness, the majority of participants preferred the sound quality of the NAL-NL2 (8 of 14) prescription instead of the CAM2 prescription (2 of 14). Four of the 14 participants showed no preference on the basis of pleasantness for either prescription. Individual subject preferences were supported by loudness modeling that indicated NAL-NL2 was the softer of the two prescriptions and CAM2 was the louder. CAM2 did provide more audibility to the higher frequencies (5-8 kHz) than NAL-NL2. Participants turned the 4-10 kHz gain recommendation of CAM2 lower, on average, by a significant amount of 4 dB when making adjustments while no significant adjustment was made to the initial NAL-NL2 recommendation. Conclusions: NAL-NL2 prescribed gains were more often preferred at the initial fitting by the majority of participating veterans. For those patients with preference for a louder fitting than NAL-NL2, CAM2 is a good alternative. When the participant adjustment from the prescription between 4 and 10 kHz exceeded 4 dB from either NAL-NL2 (2 of 14) or CAM2 (11 of 14), the participants demonstrated a later preference for that adjustment 69% of the time. These findings are viewed as limited evidence that some individuals may have a preference for high-frequency gain that differs from the starting prescription.

Summary Objective To develop a psychometrically sound self-report questionnaire, the Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI), to help identify individuals with vocal fatigue (VF) and characterize their complaints. Study Design Descriptive research—scale development. Methods Four laryngologists and six speech-language pathologists specialized in voice created a beta version of the VFI (version 1), an index of 21 statements they considered to reflect VF. Two hundred patients presenting to two different clinics completed the VFI-1. Two items from VFI-1 were excluded because of poor item-to-total correlations. The final VFI of 19 items (version 2), completed by 105 patients with voice complaints and 70 vocally healthy individuals, was assessed for its psychometric properties. Results Test-retest reliability for the final VFI was generally strong, as was sensitivity and specificity using the classification table under logistic regression for correctly distinguishing individuals with and without VF. Moreover, factor analysis indicated that VF may be characterized by three factors: (1) factor 1, related to tiredness of voice and voice avoidance, (2) factor 2, related to physical discomfort associated with voicing, and (3) factor 3, related to improvement of symptoms with rest. Conclusion The VFI is a standardized tool that can identify individuals with probable VF with good reliability, validity, sensitivity, and specificity.

Background: Fluent speakers and people who stutter manifest alterations in autonomic and emotional responses as they view stuttered relative to fluent speech samples. These reactions are indicative of an aroused autonomic state and are hypothesized to be triggered by the abrupt breakdown in fluency exemplified in stuttered speech. Furthermore, these reactions are assumed to be the basis for the stereotypes held by different communicative partners towards people who stutter. Aims: To examine the autonomic and emotional reactions of graduate student clinicians in speech–language pathology as they viewed fluent and severe stuttered speech samples. Methods & Procedures: Twenty-one female graduate student clinicians in speech–language pathology participated in this study. Each participant viewed four 30-s video samples (two fluent and two stuttered speech samples) while their autonomic responses (skin conductance response (SCR) and heart rate (HR)) were concurrently captured. Furthermore, emotional responses to stuttered and fluent speech samples were captured using the self-assessment manikin (SAM) and a rating scale with nine bipolar adjectives reflecting one's feelings. Outcomes & Results: An increase in SCR and deceleration in HR was observed as graduate clinicians viewed stuttered speech samples versus fluent speech samples and the differences were statistically significant. In addition, results from the self-rating scales showed that participants had negative feelings (e.g., emotionally aroused, unpleasant, embarrassed, uncomfortable, etc.) while viewing stuttered speech. Conclusions & Implications: Findings suggest that graduate student clinicians in speech–language pathology demonstrated altered autonomic and emotional responses similar to those manifested by fluent and stuttered speakers as they viewed stuttered speech samples. Collectively, these findings support the contention that the inherent nature of stuttered speech triggers a visceral reaction in a listener, irrespective of their background and knowledge about the disorder.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Students on two continents are participating in a new, innovative program designed to promote research into communication disorders across languages and cultures. The three-year project, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Education and the Brazilian Ministry of Education (Fundacao Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior; CAPES), supports student exchange as well as cross-cultural and cross-linguistic curriculum development for students of speech-language pathology and audiology at four universities in the United States and Brazil. The universities include East Tennessee State University (lead U.S. university, Dr. Brenda Louw, Project Director), the University of Northern Iowa (Dr. Ken Bleile, Project Director), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (lead Brazil university, Dr. Marcia Keske-Soares, Project Director,), and Universidade de São Paulo-Baurú (Dr. Inge Trindade, Project Director).