مروری سیستماتیک بر آزمون های رفتاری شنوایی با محرک گفتار

نوع مقاله: مقاله مروری

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد، مربی، مرکز تحقیقات اختلالات ارتباطی زبان، گفتار و شنوایی، مجموعه مراکز علوم توانبخشی، گروه شنوایی شناسی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی، شنوایی شناسی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف
بیشتر ارتباطات بشر به شکل گفتار می­باشد و بخش مهمی از آزمون­های شنوایی با محرک گفتاری انجام می­شود. تقسیم­بندی­های مختلفی برای آزمون­های رفتاری شنوایی با محرک گفتاری وجود دارد. هدف مطالعه حاضر، بررسی آزمون­های رفتاری شنوایی با محرک گفتاری است. همچنین باید گفت که آزمون­های رفتاری شنوایی با محرک گفتاری دارای کاربردهای مختلف بوده که بسیاری از محققان در مطالعاتشان از آنها استفاده کرده­اند.
مواد و روش ­ها
مطالعه حاضر به وسیله بررسی پایگاه­های علمی (Magiran, Scopus،SID ،Pubmed ،Science direct ،Google scholar ) در بازه زمانی 2018–1976 با استفاده از واژگان مرتبط با موضوع انجام شد و مقالات با توجه به معیارهای ورود و خروج انتخاب گردید.
یافته ­ها
در مطالعه حاضر آزمون­های رفتاری شنوایی با محرک گفتاری بر اساس سطح مهارت­های شنیداری[a1]  تقسیم­بندی و بررسی شد. هم­چنین این آزمون­ها می­تواند بر اساس نوع آزمون، نوع محرک مورد استفاده در آنها، گروه سنی، شدت ارائه تحریک در آنها و کاربرد در مقالات و منابع تقسیم­بندی شود. در بخش یافته­ها جدولی که آزمون­ها را معرفی می­کند، آورده شده است.
نتیجه­ گیری
کاربرد این آزمون­ها در شنوایی­شناسی متفاوت است. برخی آزمون­های رفتاری شنیداری با محرک گفتاری برای غربالگری و برخی از آنها، در تعیین سطح برای توانبخشی شنوایی به کار می­رود و حتی در ارزیابی تشخیصی بیماران کاربرد دارد. همچنین آزمون­های گفتاری که درک شنیداری را بررسی می­کند، برای تعیین میزان عملکرد فرد در محیط زندگی­اش و سودمندی وسایل کمک­شنیداری و تجویز سمعک لازم می­باشد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Systematic Review of Auditory Behavioral Tests with Speech Stimuli

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somayeh Falahzadeh 1
  • Sara Khosravi 2
  • Samaneh Rohani 2
1 Communication Disorder Research Center, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Department of Audiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 BSc Student of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Department of Audiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Background and Aim: Most of human communications occur in the form of speech, and an important part of the auditory assessment is performed by a speech stimulus. There are different classifications for auditory behavioral tests with speech stimulus. The purpose of the present study was to investigate auditory behavioral evaluations with speech stimulus. It should also be noted that auditory behavioral tests with speech stimulus have different applications and many researchers have used them in their studies.
Methods and Materials: The scientific databases (magiran, SID, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar) were search for the studies published between 1976 to 2018 using relevant keywords. The researches were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Findings: In the current paper, auditory behavioral tests were classified based on the auditory levels. Also, test type, type of stimulus used, age group, intensity of stimulation, method of application, etc. which were presented in various articles and sources, were mentioned and compared with each other.
Conclusion: Some of the auditory behavioral tests with speech stimulus are used for screening, determining the hearing level in hearing rehabilitation, and evaluating patients. Moreover, speech tests that assess Auditory Perception are necessary to determine the individuals’ performance in their living environment, and the benefits and fitting of hearing aids.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Speech Audiometry
  • Auditory Threshold
  • Speech Discrimination Tests
  • Auditory Perception
  1.  Buck, R. and C.A. VanLear, Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of communication, 2002. 52(3): p. 522-541.##
  2. Khalili, M., et al., Test-retest reliability and listequivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test. Journal of Modern Rehabilitation, 2010. 3(3): p. 16-21. [In Persian]. ##
  3. Katz, J., et al., Handbook of clinical audiology. 2009: Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott William & Wilkins. ##
  4. Schoepflin, J.R., Back to basics: speech audiometry. Adelphi University. Retrieved on, 2012. 23(12): p. 20-45##
  5. Bahadori, et al., Children's Auditory training. 1994: p. 1-30. In Persian. ##
  6. Bakhtiyari , J., et al., Survey of auditory discrimination skill in 4-6years old children in Semnan city. ModernRehabilitation, 2012. 6(2): p. 37-41. In Persian. ##
  7. Salehi F, e.a., Speech and Language Rehabilitation on Auditory impairment.1(Pegah Institute:Hasti s): p. 16-90. In Persian. ##
  8. Roeser, R., M. Valente, and H. Hosford-Dunn, Audiology Diagnosis. 2nd. Thieme2009: p. 345-451. ##
  9. Ahmadi, A., etal., Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. J Rehab Med, 2015. 4(2): p. 109-17. In Persian. ##
10. Mendel, L.L., Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. American Journal of Audiology, 2007. 16(2): p. 118-129. ##

11. Woods, D.L., et al., Aided and unaided speech perception by older hearing impaired listeners. PloS one, 2015. 10(3): p. e0114922. ##

12. Wilson, R.H. and R. McArdle, Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 2005. 42. ##

13. Calais, L.L., I.C.P. Russo, and A.C.L.d.C. Borges, Performance of elderly in a speech in noise test. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica, 2008. 20(3): p. 147-152. ##

14. Causey, G.D., et al., A comparative evaluation of the Maryland NU 6 Auditory Test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1983. 48(1): p. 62-69. ##

15. Tadros, S.F., et al., Loss of peripheral right-ear advantage in age-related hearing loss. Audiology and Neurotology, 2005. 10(1): p. 44-52. ##

16. Reynolds, W.M. and M. Rubin, National standardization of the auditory discrimination test: Normative and reliability results. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1987. 2(1): p. 67-79. ##

17. Shahhosini S, e.a., 1ed, , Clinical Audiology. 2005: p. 50-101. ##

18. Beykirch, H. and J. Gaeth, A comparison of speech discrimination scores by using PB-50 lists and the speech discrimination scale with hearing-impaired adults. The Journal of auditory research, 1978. 18(3): p. 153-164 .In Persian. ##

19. Orchik, D.J., K.M. Krygier, and B.P. Cutts, A comparison of the NU-6 and W-22 speech discrimination tests for assessing sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1979. 44(4): p. 522-527. ##

20. Gelfand, S., Essentials of Audiology. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme, 2009. ##

21. Northern, J.L. and M.P. Downs, Hearing in children. 2002: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ##

22. Jane Madell, P., CCC-A/SLP, ABA, LSLS Cert AVT, Pediatric Amplification: Using Speech Perception to Achieve Best Outcomes. February 7, 2011. ##

23. Wilson, B., et al., Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 1991. 352(6332): p. 236. ##

24. Cord, M., B. Walden, and R. Atack, Speech recognition in noise test (SPRINT) for H-3 profile. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 1992. ##

 

25. Taylor, B., Speech-in-noise tests: How and why to indude them in your busic test buttery. ##

26. Sharma, S., R. Tripathy, and U. Saxena, Critical appraisal of speech in noise tests: a systematic review and survey. International Journal of Research in MedicalSciences, 2016. 5(1): p. 13-21. ##

27. Cameron, S., H. Dillon, and P. Newall, The listening in spatialized noise test: an auditory processing disorder study. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2006. 17(5): p. 306-320. ##

28. McArdle, R., Speech Recognition Testing: The Basics. ##

29. Ng, S.L., et al., Adaptation of the BKB-SIN test for use as a pediatric aided outcome measure. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2011. 22(6): p. 375-386. ##

30. Bench, J., Å. Kowal, and J. Bamford, The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British journal of audiology, 1979. 13(3): p. 108-112. ##

31. Wilson, R.H., C.S. Carnell, and A.L. Cleghorn, The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2007. 18(6): p. 522-529. ##

32. Cox, R.M., et al., The Connected Speech Test Version 3: Audiovisual Administration. Ear and Hearing, 1989. 10(1): p. 29-32. ##

33. Kalikow, D.N., K.N. Stevens, and L.L. Elliott, Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1977. 61(5): p. 1337-1351. ##

34. Fallahzadeh, Z., et al., Comparing the results of Persianstaggered spondaic word test in persistent developmental stutterers and normal subjects. Auditory and Vestibular Research, 2017. 22(3): p. 102-111.In Persian. ##

35. Schafer, E.C., Speech perception in noise measures for children: A critical review and case studies. Journal of Educational Audiology, 2010. 16: p. 4-15. ##

36. Trautwein, P.G., Y.S. Sininger, and R. Nelson, Cochlear implantation of auditory neuropathy. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2000. 11(6): p. 309-315. ##

37. Papsin, B.C., et al., Speech perception outcome measures in prelingually deaf children up to four years after cochlear implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 2000. 109(12_suppl): p. 38-42. ##

38. Northern, J.L. and M.P. Downs, Hearing in children. 2009: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ##

39. Freyaldenhoven, M.C., Acceptable Noise Level (ANL): Research and Current Application. ##

40. Haresabadi, F. and T.S. Shirazi, Phonological working memory and its relationship with language abilities in children with cochlear implants. Bimonthly Audiology-Tehran University of Medical Sciences, 2014. 23(5): p. 1-13##.

41. Parbery-Clark, A., et al., Musical experience and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise. PloS one, 2011. 6(5): p. e18082. ##

42. Kim, S., et al., Effect of age on binaural speech intelligibility in normal hearing adults. Speech Communication, 2006. 48(6): p. 591-597. ##

43. Kumar, U.A. and C. Vanaja, Functioning of olivocochlear bundle and speech perception in noise. Ear and hearing, 2009. 25(2): p. 142-146. ##

44. Chermak, G.D., and Frank E. Musiek, eds. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder, Volume II: Comprehensive Intervention. Vol. 2. Plural Publishing, 2013. ##

45. Musiek, F.E. and G.D. Chermak, Handbook of central auditory processing disorder, volume I: auditory neuroscience and diagnosis. Vol. 1. 2013: Plural Publishing. ##

46. Theunissen, M., D.W. Swanepoel, and J. Hanekom, Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. International journal of audiology, 2009. 48(11): p. 743-757. ##

47. Kraus, N., Hearing in Noise: The Brain Health Connection. 2017, LWW. ##

48. Nazeri, A.-R., et al., Auditory processing disorders in elderly people. Rehabilitation Medicine, 2014. 3(1): p. 58-66. [In Persian]. ##