Normal and Hearing-Impaired Word Recognition Scores for Monosyllabic Words in Quiet and Noise

Abstract

The effects of noise on word recognition scores were assessed with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Fifty-one normal-hearing subjects were tested at 50 dB HL using signal-to-noise ratios (S/Ns) of 5, 10, and 15 dB. Thirty subjects with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing losses were tested in quiet and in noise at S/Ns of 10 dB and 15 dB. Monosyllabic words in a Multitalker Noise were selected for testing. Mean scores for the normal-hearing subjects were 45% at the 5 dB S/N, 74% at the 10 dB S/N, and 87% at the 15 dB S/N. For the hearing-impaired subjects, scores were 85% in quiet, 60% at the 15 dB S/N, and 40% at the 10 dB S/N. These results suggest that background noise which is mildly disruptive for normal hearing subjects can be highly disruptive to hearing-impaired subjects. Moreover, these findings indicate that subjects with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss require a more favourable S/N than normal listeners to achieve comparable word recognition scores. Test-retest differences for word recognition scores revealed variability that agreed closely with predictions based on the binomial distribution for both groups of subjects. Speech-in-noise abilities must be measured directly because regression equations revealed that speech-in-noise scores cannot be predicted accurately from either puretone thresholds or speech-in-quiet scores. Word recognition functions are presented from several hearing-impaired subjects and demonstrate the value of testing in noise.

Auditory Steady-State Responses and Word Recognition Scores in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Adults

“…Similar results have been reported in other studies (Dubno, Dirks, & Morgan, 1984, Frisina & Frisina, 1997Pichora-Fuller, Schneider, & Daneman, 1995). The effect of masking was even greater in the hearing-impaired, confirming previous studies (Beattie, Barr, & Roup, 1997;Dubno et al, 1984;Frisina & Frisina, 1997). One reason for this decreased performance in hearing-impaired patients is that sensorineural patients have proportionally less speech signal available for processing (Van Tasell, 1993).…”

Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language listeners’ recognition of English words in competing signals

“…EML listeners' performance agreed well with previous reports that used similar test stimuli and paradigms (e.g. Beattie et al, 1997). The superior performance of EML listeners over ESL listeners was expected given existing evidence (e.g.…”

Audiometric hearing status of individuals with and without multiple sclerosis

“…Many professionals in the audiology community have suggested that audiologists should move away from the standard test protocol of testing word recognition in quiet and instead test speech recognition in noise. Problems recognizing speech in the presence of noise is the primary handicap of individuals with sensorineural hearing loss, and this type of testing better discriminates between individuals with hearing loss and those with normal hearing (e.g., Plomp and Duquesnoy [20], Pekkarinen et al [21], Beattie et al [22]). Further, a prior study we conducted and presented in this journal reported that this type of testing paradigm did show differences in performance between individuals with and without MS [23].…”