Comparison of Auditory Comprehension in Different Levels of Noise in the Elderly and Young Adult Group

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 MSc student in Speech Therapy, Student Research Committee, Rehabilitation Students Research Center (Treata), Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Instructor, Department of Audiology, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Faculty Member, Speech Therapy Rehabilitation Sciences, Student Research Committee, Rehabilitation Students Research Center (Treata), Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: The elderly population is increasing in the world as the levels of health and life expectancy increase, so more studies are needed in the fields of longevity and concequent changes in communication behaviors. Quick Speech in Noise Test (QSIN) examines auditory comprehension of the people in the presence of noise. The aim of the current study was to compare the results of QSIN in young adults and the elderly with normal hearing threshold.
Materials and Methods: In the present descriptive-analytic and cross-sectional study, samples were selected through availability sampling. The study population consisted of 31 elderly and 31 young adults selected according to inclusion criteria. Audiometric tests of pure tone-acoustic Immitance and speech audiometric as well as QSIN were administered in the elderly and young adult groups.
Results: In Signal to Noise Ratios (SNR) 25, 20, 15,10,5, and 0 dB, there was a significant difference between the young adult and elderly groups (P<0.05). But in 25 SNRs, no significant difference was found between the two groups (P>0.05). Also, the results showed that SNR 5 SNR and SNR0 had significant differences with SNRs in 10, 15, 20, and 25 between the elderly and young adult groups (P <0.05).
Conclusion: According to the results obtained in the present study, elderly people may be different from the young adult group in cortical and sub cortical processing activities of the brain, and thus may have the weaker speech in noise comprehension ability compared with the young adult group.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Imani A, Dastgiri S. Epidemology and the Burden of Dieases in Health Care System. Depiction of HealthJournal.2015;6(2):54-61[ In Persian].##
2. Mirzaei M, Shams Ghahfarokhi M. Demography of Elder Population in Iran over the Period 1956 To 2006. Iranian Journal of Ageing. 2007; 2(3):326-31 [In Persian]. ##
3. Samani M, Abnavi F, Ghasisin L. Do Older Adults Experience Changes in Their Speech Fluency? Some Evidence from Iranian Elderly People. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GERONTOLOGY and Geriatrics.2017; 8(4):127-32[In Persian]. ##
4. Donna Geffner DR-S. Auditory Processing Disorders: Assessment, Management and Treatment. Second; 2007. ##
5.Falahzadeh S, Khosravi S, Rohani S .Systematic Review of Auditory Behavioral Tests with Speech Stimuli (Persian). Journal Rehab Med.2018; 8(2):35-47[In Persian]. ##
6. Museik E. Frank CDG. Handbook of Auditory Processing Disorder. Second, editor: Plural Publishing; 2014. ##
7. R WB. Development of Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span. Develop Psychology Journal.1999; 35(1):205-13. ##
8. Stemmer B, Whitaker HA. Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language: Academic Press; 2008. ##
9. Parbery-Clark A, L. Strait D, Anderson S. Musical Experience and the Aging Auditory System: Implications for Cognitive Abilities and Hearing Speechin Noise. PLoS ONE Journal. 2011; 6(5):1-8. ##
10. Burda, A N. Communication and Swallowing Changes in Healthy Aging Adults. Jones & Bartlett Learn David Cella; 2011. 194 p. ##
11. Katz J, Chasin M, Hood LJ, English KM, Tillery KL. Handbook of Clinical Audiology: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. ##
12. Schneider BA, Avivi-Reich M, Daneman M. How Spoken Language Comprehension is Achieved by Older Listeners in Difficult Listening Situations. Experimental Aging Research Journal.2016; 42(1):31-49. ##
13. Plomp R, Mimpen A. Improving the Reliability of Testing the Speech Reception Threshold for Sentences. Audiology Journal. 1979; 18(1):43-52. ##
14. Dubno J. Dirks, D. Effects of Age and Mild Hearing loss on Speech Recognition in Noise. Acoust Journal. 1984; 76:87-96. ##
15.Nazeri A-R, Lotfi Y, Moosavi A. Auditory Processing Disorders in Elderly People. Journal Rehab Med. 2014; 3(1):58-66[In Persian]. ##
16. Khalili m, Fatahi J. Test-retest Reliability and List Equivalency of the Persian Quick Speech in Noise Test. Mod Rehabilitation Journal. 2010; 3((3, 4)):1-7[In Persian]. ##
17. Sharma S, Tripathy R, Saxena U. Critical Appraisal of Speech in Noise Tests: a Systematic Review and Survey. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2016; 5(1):13-21. ##
18.Shayanmehr S, Tahaei AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie S, Modarresi Y. Development, Validity and Reliability of Persian Quick Speech in Noise Ttest with Steady Noise. Auditory and Vestibular Research Journal. 2015; 24(4):234-44[In Persian]. ##
19. Hanilou J, Fatahi J, Tahaei AA, Jalaie S. List Equivalency of the Persian Quick Speech in Noise Test on Hearing Impaired Subjects. Auditory and Vestibular Research Journal. 2016; 25(1):7-13[In Persian]. ##
20. Gelfand SA, Ross L, Miller S. Sentence Reception in Noise from One versus Two Sources: Effects of Aging and Hearing loss. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1988; 83(1):248-56. ##
21. Pichora-Fuller MK, Souza PE. Effects of Aging on Auditory Processing of Speech. Internal Journal of Audiol. 2003; 42(2):11-6. ##
22. Obler LK, Fein D, Nicholas M, Albert ML. Auditory Comprehension and Aging: Decline in Syntactic Processing. Applied Psycholinguistics Journal. 1991; 12(4):433-52. ##
23. Gelfand SAP, N. Consonant Recognition in Quiet and in Noise with Aging amongNormal Hearing Listeners.Acoust Journal. 1986; 80(6):1589-98. ##
24. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Temporal Factors and Speech Recognition Performance in Young and Elderly Listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993; 36(6):1276-85. ##
25 Frisina DR, Frisina RD. Speech Recognition in Noise and Presbycusis: Relations to Possible Neural Mechanisms. Hear Res. 1997; 106(1-2):95-104. ##
26. Brody JE. Restoring Ebbing Hormones May Slow Aging. New York Times. 1995; 18. ##
27.Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Training to Improve Hearing Speech in Noise: Biological Mechanisms. Cereb Cortex Journal. 2011; 22(5):1180-90. ##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 9, Issue 3
November 2020
Pages 131-140

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 November 2019
  • Revise Date: 21 November 2019
  • Accept Date: 10 December 2019
  • First Publish Date: 22 September 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics