Purpose: To establish normative data for children on the Words-in-Noise Test (WIN; R. H. Wilson, 2003; R. H. Wilson & R. McArdle, 2007). Method: Forty-two children ineachof 7 age groups, rangingin age from6to12years (n = 294), and 24 young adults (age range: 18-27 years) with normal hearing for pure tones participated. All listeners were screened at 15 dB HL (American National Standards Institute, 2004) with the octave interval between 500 and 4000 Hz. Randomizations of WIN Lists 1, 2, and 1 or WIN Lists 2, 1, and 2 were presented with the noise fixed at 70 dB SPL, followed by presentation at 90 dB SPL of the 70 Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (T. W. Tillman & R. Carhart, 1966) words used in the WIN. Finally, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (L. M. Dunn & L. M. Dunn, 1981) was administered. Testing was conducted in a quiet room. Results: There were 3 main findings: (a) The biggest change inrecognition performance occurred between the ages of 6 and 7 years; (b) from 9 to 12 years, recognition performance was stable; and (c) performance by young adults (18-27 years) was slightly better (1-2 dB) than performance by the older children. Conclusion: The WIN can be used with children as young as 6 years of age; however, age-specific ranges of normal recognition performance must be used.

Background: This is a case study of an 18-year-old female who suffered a bilateral idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss that was coincident with the removal of four impacted wisdom teeth. Throughout childhood the patient had normal hearing for pure tones bilaterally as measured at the pediatrician's office. One month prior to dental surgery (May) the patient volunteered to participate in an auditory experiment at which time her pure-tone audiogram was normal. Immediately following surgery (June), the patient had substantial swelling of the face and complained of some hearing loss with no other auditory/vestibular complaints. The following month (July) during the course of a routine physical examination a pure-tone audiogram revealed bilateral, air-conduction thresholds of 30-35 dB HL (500-4000 Hz) and 20 dB HL (8000 Hz). Because bone conduction was not tested, it is impossible to know whether the hearing loss was conductive, mixed, or sensorineural. The pediatrician thought that the hearing loss was conductive and would resolve as the edema subsided. A month later (August) the subject again volunteered for an auditory experiment at which time her hearing again was tested. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to detail the dental procedures involved in the extraction of the wisdom teeth, to report the results of a variety and series of post-op hearing tests, and to discuss the possible mechanisms that might be involved in the ''idiopathic'' bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: Case report. Results: During the August visit to the laboratory, hearing for pure tones bilaterally was 0 to 5 dB HL at 250-1000 Hz with a 40-45 dB HL notch at 2000 Hz with a return to 10 dB HL at 8000 Hz. Air conduction and bone conduction thresholds were equivalent. Word recognition in quiet was ≥92 percent correct for both ears, whereas the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) hearing loss measured with the Words-in-Noise test was high normal in the left ear with a mild SNR hearing loss in the right ear. Tympanometry and acoustic reflex thresholds were normal. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions were reduced in the 1000-3000 Hz region for both ears, which is consistent with cochlear hearing loss. The hearing loss has remained unchanged for the past 19 months. Conclusions: The possible etiologies, including insults to the cochleae by vibration trauma and through alterations in the blood supply to the cochleae, are considered.

Retest stability and retest reliability were assessed for the Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) in two experiments involving older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, the 70-item WIN protocol was administered during two sessions 12 months apart to examine retest stability on a sample of 315 veterans from four VA Medical Centers. The mean 50% points on the WIN were 12.5- and 12.8-dB S/N for the two sessions with a critical difference of 3.5 dB and an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.88. [Normal recognition performance on the WIN (50% point) is ≤6-dB S/N.] In Experiment 2, intra- and inter-session retest reliability was examined for the two 35-word WIN protocols on 96 veterans, 48 of whom had mild-to-severe hearing loss (Group 1) and 48 of whom had a moderate-to-severe hearing loss (Group 2). The mean 50% points on the WIN during the two sessions (separated by 40 days) were 13.0- and 13.4-dB S/N (Group 1) and 15.3- and 15.8-dB S/N (Group 2) with no significant intra-session differences. A 3.1-dB critical difference was calculated for the groups combined with intraclass correlations of 0.89 and 0.91 for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively.

In an initial experiment (Wilson and Weakley, 2004), word recognition was assessed with six digit triplets presented at 14 signal-to-babble ratios (S/B) in 2 dB steps. An abbreviated version of the protocol was developed for clinic use involving three digit triplets at 7 S/Bs in 4 dB steps. The purpose of this experiment was to examine the relationship between the two digit protocols with comparisons made with other variables including age, pure-tone thresholds, subjective measures of understanding speech in quiet and in noise, and word recognition of monosyllabic words in quiet and in babble. Ninety-six listeners with sensorineural hearing loss participated. For equivalent performance, the short version of the digit triplets required (1) a 2.6 dB more favorable S/B than the long version and (2) a 15.1 dB less favorable S/B than the words. Age, hearing loss, and subjective evaluation of the ability to understand speech in quiet and in noise were not related to performance on digits or words in multitalker babble.

The purpose of this study was to determine if performances on a 500 Hz MLD task and a word-recognition task in multitalker babble covaried or varied independently for listeners with normal hearing and for listeners with hearing loss. Young listeners with normal hearing (n = 25) and older listeners (25 per decade from 40-80 years, n = 125) with sensorineural hearing loss were studied. Thresholds at 500 and 1000 Hz were ≤30 dB HL and ≤40 dB HL, respectively, with thresholds above 1000 Hz <100 dB HL. There was no systematic relationship between the 500 Hz MLD and word-recognition performance in multitalker babble. Higher SoNo and SπNo thresholds were observed for the older listeners, but the MLDs were the same for all groups. Word recognition in babble in terms of signal-to-babble ratio was on average 6.5 (40- to 49-year-old group) to 10.8 dB (80- to 89-year-old group) poorer for the older listeners with hearing loss. Neither pure-tone thresholds nor word-recognition abilities in quiet accurately predicted word-recognition performance in multitalker babble.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the relationship between psychometric functions for words presented in multitalker babble using a descending presentation level protocol and a random presentation level protocol. Forty veterans (mean = 63.5 years) with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing losses were enrolled. Seventy of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 words spoken by the VA female speaker were presented at seven signal-to-babble ratios from 24 to 0 dB (10 words/step). Although the random procedure required 69 sec longer to administer than the descending protocol, there was no significant difference between the results obtained with the two psychophysical methods. There was almost no relation between the perceived ability of the listeners to understand speech in background noise and their measured ability to understand speech in multitalker babble. Likewise, there was a tenuous relation between pure-tone thresholds and performance on the words in babble and between recognition performance in quiet and performance on the words in babble.

No description available.

This review presents a brief history of the evolution of speech audiometry from the 1800s to present day. The two-component aspect of hearing loss (audibility and distortion), which was formalized into a framework in past literature, is presented in the context of speech recognition. The differences between speech recognition in quiet and in background noise are discussed as they relate to listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. A discussion of the use of sentence materials versus word materials for clinical use is included as is a discussion of the effects of presentation level on recognition performance in quiet and noise. Finally, the effects of age and hearing loss on speech recognition are considered.

Data from earlier studies that presented 70 words at 24 to 0 dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios indicated that most young listeners with normal hearing required 0 to 6 dB S/B ratios to attain 50% correct word recognition. Older listeners with hearing loss often required a >12 dB S/B ratio to attain 50% correct word recognition. In our study, we converted the Words in Noise test from one 70-word list into two 35-word lists for quicker administration by clinicians. Using baseline data from previous studies, we used two strategies to randomize the 35-word lists: based on recognition performance at each S/B ratio and based on recognition performance only. With the first randomization strategy, the 50% correct word-recognition points on the two lists differed by 0.5 dB for 72 listeners with hearing loss. With the second randomization strategy, 48 listeners with hearing loss performed identically on the two lists.

This study compares, for listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss, the recognition performances obtained with digit-pair and digit-triplet stimulus sets presented in multitalker babble. Digits 1 through 10 (excluding 7) were mixed in approximately 1,000 ms segments of babble from 4 to -20 dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios, concatenated to form the pairs and triplets, and recorded on compact disc. Nine and eight digits were presented at each level for the digit-triplet and digit-pair paradigms, respectively. For the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss, the recognition performances were 3 dB and 1.2 dB better, respectively, on digit pairs than on digit triplets. For equal intelligibility, the listeners with hearing loss required an approximately 10 dB more favorable S/B than the listeners with normal hearing. The distributions of the 50% points for the two groups had no overlap.