Systematic Review of Auditory Behavioral Tests with Speech Stimuli

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  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]. ##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 8, Issue 2
July 2019
Pages 35-47

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 26 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 08 December 2018
  • First Publish Date: 22 June 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics