噪声语音测试中的换能器变异性:与刺激带宽相关的考虑因素。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
American Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-09-03 Epub Date: 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00055
Douglas S Brungart, Alyssa J Davidson
{"title":"噪声语音测试中的换能器变异性:与刺激带宽相关的考虑因素。","authors":"Douglas S Brungart, Alyssa J Davidson","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical audiologists typically assume that headphones and insert phones will produce comparable results when they are used to conduct speech-in-noise or other audiological tests; however, this may not always be the case. Here, we show that there are significant differences in the scores that previous studies have reported for headphone and insert-phone transducers on the Words-in-Noise (WIN) Test, and discuss the possibility that the variations in high-frequency output that are allowable under the speech source specifications of American National Standards Institute S3.6 might be contributing to transducer-dependent differences in performance for the WIN and other tests that are presented through the auxiliary input channels of clinical audiometers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify articles that reported WIN Test results for both listeners with normal hearing and with hearing impairment and specified the type of transducer (insert or TDH-50) used for the data collection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 19 included studies, participants with normal hearing using inserts exhibited systematically worse WIN Test scores compared to those using TDH-50 headphones, while participants with hearing loss showed comparable average scores across transducer types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results highlight the importance of considering transducer type when interpreting WIN Test outcomes, particularly when comparing to normative scores obtained from individuals with normal hearing. Although further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving differences in test performance across transducer types, these findings underscore the need for standardized test administration protocols and careful documentation of transducer type when administering speech-in-noise tests for clinical or research applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1070-1076"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transducer Variability in Speech-in-Noise Testing: Considerations Related to Stimulus Bandwidth.\",\"authors\":\"Douglas S Brungart, Alyssa J Davidson\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical audiologists typically assume that headphones and insert phones will produce comparable results when they are used to conduct speech-in-noise or other audiological tests; however, this may not always be the case. Here, we show that there are significant differences in the scores that previous studies have reported for headphone and insert-phone transducers on the Words-in-Noise (WIN) Test, and discuss the possibility that the variations in high-frequency output that are allowable under the speech source specifications of American National Standards Institute S3.6 might be contributing to transducer-dependent differences in performance for the WIN and other tests that are presented through the auxiliary input channels of clinical audiometers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify articles that reported WIN Test results for both listeners with normal hearing and with hearing impairment and specified the type of transducer (insert or TDH-50) used for the data collection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 19 included studies, participants with normal hearing using inserts exhibited systematically worse WIN Test scores compared to those using TDH-50 headphones, while participants with hearing loss showed comparable average scores across transducer types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results highlight the importance of considering transducer type when interpreting WIN Test outcomes, particularly when comparing to normative scores obtained from individuals with normal hearing. Although further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving differences in test performance across transducer types, these findings underscore the need for standardized test administration protocols and careful documentation of transducer type when administering speech-in-noise tests for clinical or research applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1070-1076\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00055\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00055","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:临床听力学家通常认为,当使用耳机和插入式耳机进行噪声言语或其他听力测试时,其结果具有可比性;但事实并非总是如此。在此,我们展示了以往研究报告中耳机和插入式耳机换能器在噪声言语(WIN)测试中的得分存在显著差异,并讨论了美国国家标准学会 S3.6 语音源规范所允许的高频输出变化可能是导致 WIN 和其他通过临床听力计辅助输入通道进行的测试中换能器性能差异的原因:方法:我们对文献进行了综述,以找出那些报告了听力正常和听力受损听者的 WIN 测试结果的文章,并注明了收集数据时使用的传感器类型(插入式或 TDH-50):结果:在纳入的 19 项研究中,与使用 TDH-50 耳机的听力正常者相比,使用插入式耳机的听力正常者的 WIN 测试成绩明显较差,而有听力损失的听力正常者在不同类型的换能器上的平均成绩相当:结论:研究结果强调了在解释 WIN 测试结果时考虑传感器类型的重要性,尤其是在与听力正常者的标准分数进行比较时。尽管还需要进一步的研究来阐明不同类型传感器在测试成绩上存在差异的根本原因,但这些研究结果突出表明,在临床或研究应用中进行噪声语言测试时,需要制定标准化的测试管理方案并仔细记录传感器类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transducer Variability in Speech-in-Noise Testing: Considerations Related to Stimulus Bandwidth.

Purpose: Clinical audiologists typically assume that headphones and insert phones will produce comparable results when they are used to conduct speech-in-noise or other audiological tests; however, this may not always be the case. Here, we show that there are significant differences in the scores that previous studies have reported for headphone and insert-phone transducers on the Words-in-Noise (WIN) Test, and discuss the possibility that the variations in high-frequency output that are allowable under the speech source specifications of American National Standards Institute S3.6 might be contributing to transducer-dependent differences in performance for the WIN and other tests that are presented through the auxiliary input channels of clinical audiometers.

Method: A literature review was conducted to identify articles that reported WIN Test results for both listeners with normal hearing and with hearing impairment and specified the type of transducer (insert or TDH-50) used for the data collection.

Results: Among the 19 included studies, participants with normal hearing using inserts exhibited systematically worse WIN Test scores compared to those using TDH-50 headphones, while participants with hearing loss showed comparable average scores across transducer types.

Conclusions: The results highlight the importance of considering transducer type when interpreting WIN Test outcomes, particularly when comparing to normative scores obtained from individuals with normal hearing. Although further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving differences in test performance across transducer types, these findings underscore the need for standardized test administration protocols and careful documentation of transducer type when administering speech-in-noise tests for clinical or research applications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Audiology
American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信