Comparison of speech detection and spondee thresholds and half- versus full-list intelligibility scores with MLV and taped presentations of NU-6.

R C Beattie, D A Svihovec, B J Edgerton
{"title":"Comparison of speech detection and spondee thresholds and half- versus full-list intelligibility scores with MLV and taped presentations of NU-6.","authors":"R C Beattie,&nbsp;D A Svihovec,&nbsp;B J Edgerton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several speech audiometric measurements were made on 212 ears with mild sensorineural hearing loss. An 8-dB difference between speech detection and spondee thresholds was observed, which is the same relationship that has been found in normal ears. No significant differences in speech discrimination scores (SDS's) were observed when NU-6 was administered via monitored live voice (MLV) and the Auditec recordings. Although our data support the use of MLV testing, verification with a standardized recording should be considered when unusually poor SDS's are obtained. Half-list and full-list SDS's were analyzed for both taped and MLV presentation modes. This analysis showed that both the MLV and taped stimuli exhibited very similar variability and that about 96% of the half-list scores were within 6% of the full-list scores. The clinician should be cautious, however, because 4% of the ears had half-list/full-list discrepancies ranging from 8 to 14% and differences as large as 28% have been reported by Raffin and Thornton (1977). Furthermore, variability between half-list and full-list SDS's varies as a function of intelligibility impairment, being least for scores approaching the extremes of 0 and 100% and greatest for scores in the 30 to 70% range. Finally, our data suggest that half-list testing can be an effective screening procedure to determine it full-list testing is advisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":76026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Audiology Society","volume":"3 6","pages":"267-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1978-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Audiology Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several speech audiometric measurements were made on 212 ears with mild sensorineural hearing loss. An 8-dB difference between speech detection and spondee thresholds was observed, which is the same relationship that has been found in normal ears. No significant differences in speech discrimination scores (SDS's) were observed when NU-6 was administered via monitored live voice (MLV) and the Auditec recordings. Although our data support the use of MLV testing, verification with a standardized recording should be considered when unusually poor SDS's are obtained. Half-list and full-list SDS's were analyzed for both taped and MLV presentation modes. This analysis showed that both the MLV and taped stimuli exhibited very similar variability and that about 96% of the half-list scores were within 6% of the full-list scores. The clinician should be cautious, however, because 4% of the ears had half-list/full-list discrepancies ranging from 8 to 14% and differences as large as 28% have been reported by Raffin and Thornton (1977). Furthermore, variability between half-list and full-list SDS's varies as a function of intelligibility impairment, being least for scores approaching the extremes of 0 and 100% and greatest for scores in the 30 to 70% range. Finally, our data suggest that half-list testing can be an effective screening procedure to determine it full-list testing is advisable.

用MLV和录音呈现NU-6的语音检测和自发性阈值以及半表和全表可理解性分数的比较。
本文对212耳轻度感音神经性听力损失患者进行了语音听力测量。在语音检测和spondee阈值之间观察到8db的差异,这与在正常耳朵中发现的关系相同。通过监控的实时语音(MLV)和Auditec录音给予NU-6时,言语歧视评分(SDS)无显著差异。虽然我们的数据支持MLV测试的使用,但当获得异常差的SDS时,应考虑使用标准化记录进行验证。对录音和MLV两种呈现方式的半表SDS和全表SDS进行分析。这一分析表明,MLV和磁带刺激都表现出非常相似的可变性,大约96%的半列表得分与完整列表得分相差在6%以内。然而,临床医生应该谨慎,因为4%的耳朵有半表/全表差异,范围从8%到14%,Raffin和Thornton(1977)报道的差异高达28%。此外,半表和全表SDS之间的可变性作为可理解性障碍的函数而变化,在接近0和100%的极端分数时最小,在30到70%的分数范围内最大。最后,我们的数据表明,半表测试可以有效地筛选程序,以确定是否全表测试是可取的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信