Effects of Speech Materials on the Loudness Discomfort Level

Abstract

Clinicians have used speech stimuli when measuring the loudness discomfort level (LDL) to determine the upper intensity limit for test stimulus presentation, and to select the saturation sound pressure level for an individual's hearing aid. Because little research has investigated the effects of speech stimuli on the LDL, this study was undertaken to compare LDLs using six commercially available speech materials on 120 normally hearing listeners. Our comparisons showed no significant differences between the mean scores for any of the speech stimuli. These findings suggest that any differences in the mean LDLs among studies probably are not attributable to the speech stimuli. The intrasession reliability of LDL measurement was also assessed using a modified method of limits procedure with 2-dB increments and instructions stressing initial discomfort. It was concluded that examiners probably could attain a high degree of reliability by simply averaging the results of two ascending trials, because 95% of these test/retest differences did not exceed 6 dB. Our findings were integrated with previous studies in terms of: (1) test stimuli; (2) listener experience; (3) instructional set; and (4) psychophysical method. This discussion points to many unanswered questions and concludes that the LDL should be interpreted very cautiously. Moreover, it is suggested that the stimuli selected for LDL measurement should reflect the examiner's purpose.

Nível de desconforto para sensação de intensidade em indivíduos com audição normal

“…When there is a suggestive history of sound intolerance, the altered LDL stresses the hyperacusis suspicion. However, in accordance with other authors (Beattie et al, 1979;Anari et al, 1999. Jastreboff & Jastreboff, 2004, our experience suggests that there is a great variability in the LDL results.…”

Factors Influencing the Validity and Reliability of Speech Audiometry

“…Similar problems exist for suprathreshold measures, such as most comfortable listening level (MCL) (Ventry et al, 1971) and uncomfortable listening level (Morgan et al, 1974;Priede and Coles, 1971 ;Stephens and Anderson, 1971). The test results are influenced by speaker characteristics, procedure (Kopra and Blosser, 1968;Loftiss, 1964), (ascending/descending [Woods et al, 1973], live voice/recorded, noise/quiet) test materials (Beattie et al-, 1979;Berger and Lowry, 1971), type of hearing loss (Kamm et al, 1978;Posner and Ventry, 1977), and instructions (Chaiklin, 1959). Anyone who 231 familiarizes himself with this literature must conclude that the validity of these measurements is highly jeopardized by the lack of reliability.…”

Relationship between Loudness Tolerance and the Acceptance of Background Noise for Young Adults with Normal Hearing

“…The role of stimulus type in loudness tolerance measurement has returned mixed results. Early studies indicated that the use of different stimuli did not result in statistically significantly different loudness tolerance measures (Beattie, Edgerton, & Gager, 1979;Hawkins, 1980). Later, Beattie and Boyd (1986) reported that an uncomfortable loudness level obtained using pure tones was a poor predictor of the uncomfortable loudness levels obtained when using a speech stimulus.…”