Psychometric functions for shortened administrations of a speech recognition approach using tri-word presentations and phonemic scoring

Association Between Tinnitus Pitch and Consonant Recognition in Noise

Purpose Difficulties in speech-in-noise understanding are often reported in individuals with tinnitus. Building on our previous findings that speech-in-noise performance is correlated with subjective loudness of tinnitus, this study aimed to investigate the effect of tinnitus pitch on consonant recognition in noise. Method Pure-tone audiometry and the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test were conducted on 66 participants categorized into four groups by their hearing sensitivity and self-report of tinnitus. Consonant recognition scores at various frequency ranges were obtained at the 5 dB SNR condition of the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test. Participants with tinnitus also completed a tinnitus pitch-matching procedure. Correlation analyses were conducted between tinnitus pitch and the frequency of the worst consonant recognition, and the error rates based on word and sentence position were compared. Results Regardless of hearing sensitivity, tinnitus pitch did not correlate with the frequency of the worst consonant recognition. Sentence-initial word recognition was affected by hearing loss, whereas sentence-final word recognition was not affected by hearing loss or tinnitus. In contrast to individuals with normal hearing, participants with hearing loss varied in full-sentence recognition, with those reporting tinnitus exhibiting significantly higher error rates. Conclusions The findings suggest that the effect of tinnitus on consonant recognition in noise may involve higher level functions more than perceptual characteristics of tinnitus. Furthermore, for individuals with speech-in-noise concerns, clinical evaluation should address both hearing sensitivity and the presence of tinnitus. Future speech-in-noise studies should incorporate cognitive tests and, possibly, brain imaging to parse out the contribution of cognitive factors, such as cognitive control, in speech-in-noise in tinnitus.

Phoneme and Word Scoring in Speech-in-Noise Audiometry

PURPOSE

Understanding speech in background noise is difficult for many individuals; however, time constraints have limited its inclusion in the clinical audiology assessment battery. Phoneme scoring of words has been suggested as a method of reducing test time and variability. The purposes of this study were to establish a phoneme scoring rubric and use it in testing phoneme and word perception in noise in older individuals and individuals with hearing impairment.

METHOD

Words were presented to 3 participant groups at 80 dB in speech-shaped noise at 7 signal-to-noise ratios (-10 to 35 dB). Responses were scored for words and phonemes correct.

RESULTS

It was not surprising to find that phoneme scores were up to about 30% better than word scores. Word scoring resulted in larger hearing loss effect sizes than phoneme scoring, whereas scoring method did not significantly modify age effect sizes. There were significant effects of hearing loss and some limited effects of age; age effect sizes of about 3 dB and hearing loss effect sizes of more than 10 dB were found.

CONCLUSION

Hearing loss is the major factor affecting word and phoneme recognition with a subtle contribution of age. Phoneme scoring may provide several advantages over word scoring. A set of recommended phoneme scoring guidelines is provided.

Large-corpus phoneme and word recognition and the generality of lexical context in CVC word perception

PURPOSE

Speech recognition may be analyzed in terms of recognition probabilities for perceptual wholes (e.g., words) and parts (e.g., phonemes), where j or the j-factor reveals the number of independent perceptual units required for recognition of the whole (Boothroyd, 1968b; Boothroyd & Nittrouer, 1988; Nittrouer & Boothroyd, 1990). For consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonsense syllables, j ∼ 3 because all 3 phonemes are needed to identify the syllable, but j ∼ 2.5 for real-word CVCs (revealing ∼2.5 independent perceptual units) because higher level contributions such as lexical knowledge enable word recognition even if less than 3 phonemes are accurately received. These findings were almost exclusively determined with the 120-word corpus of the isophonemic word lists (Boothroyd, 1968a; Boothroyd & Nittrouer, 1988), presented one word at a time. It is therefore possible that its generality or applicability may be limited. This study thus determined j by using a much larger and less restricted corpus of real-word CVCs presented in 3-word groups as well as whether j is influenced by test size.

METHOD

The j-factor for real-word CVCs was derived from the recognition performance of 223 individuals with a broad range of hearing sensitivity by using the Tri-Word Test (Gelfand, 1998), which involves 50 three-word presentations and a corpus of 450 words. The influence of test size was determined from a subsample of 96 participants with separate scores for the first 10, 20, and 25 (and all 50) presentation sets of the full test.

RESULTS

The mean value of j was 2.48 with a 95% confidence interval of 2.44-2.53, which is in good agreement with values obtained with isophonemic word lists, although its value varies among individuals. A significant correlation was found between percent-correct scores and j, but it was small and accounted for only 12.4% of the variance in j for phoneme scores ≥60%. Mean j-factors for the 10-, 20-, 25-, and 50-set test sizes were between 2.49 and 2.53 and were not significantly different from one another.

CONCLUSIONS

The j-factor based on a 450-word corpus and tri-word testing confirms and expands on findings from single-word presentations of isophonemic lists and a 120-word corpus. This enhances the generality (external validity) of the notions that j ∼ 2.5 for real-word CVCs, and lexical knowledge enables CVC word recognition based on ∼2.5 independent perceptual units. The robust nature of isophonemic word test outcomes is confirmed by close agreement with those provided by the high-reliability Tri-Word Test. Percent-correct performance was correlated with j but appeared to account for less than 13% of j-factor variance for most scores likely to be encountered in practice. Variability in the size of j suggests individual differences in the ability to take advantage of lexical knowledge in word recognition. The j-factor may be useful to inform rehabilitation needs, intervention content, and outcome assessment, as well as for other clinical applications.