The development of the University of Jordan word recognition test

Abstract

In general, the current study was successful in producing recorded speech materials for Jordanian Arabic population. This suggests that the speech stimuli generated by this study are suitable for measuring speech recognition in Jordanian Arabic-speaking listeners.

Modernising speech audiometry: using a smartphone application to test word recognition

“…The intensity at which the average score across listeners and lists was 50% was 11.64 dB above their PTA for the Afrikaans lists. The performance-intensity slope of the Afrikaans lists is similar to slope values reported for monosyllabic word lists in other languages, such as 2.8-4.2 %/dB for Spanish (Flores & Aoyama, 2008), 4.1 and 3.47%/dB for Mandarin (Han et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2011), 3.45-3.53%/dB for Arabic (Garadat et al, 2017), 6.2 %/dB for Turkish (Durankaya et al, 2014) and 4.52-4.64%/dB for Telugu, a South Indian Dravidian language (Kumar & Mohanty, 2012). Performance on the individual lists were compared across listeners at each of the intensity levels tested using Friedman's ANOVA.…”

Phonemically Balanced Arabic Monosyllabic Word Lists for Speech Audiometry Testing in Jordan

“…These words are labeled by an asterisk ( Ã ) least 96% WRS at 40 dB SL that is consistent with excellent WRS, and agrees with previous studies that reported PBmax being achieved around 30 to 40 dB supra-threshold (dB SL) in normal hearing subjects. [23][24][25]27…”

“…17 The WRS is also used in many other languages, such as Spanish, 18 Japanese, 19 Turkish, 20 and Arabic. Arabic word lists have been reported in the Egyptian, 21 Moroccan, 22 Iraqi, 23 Saudi, 24 Jordanian, 25 and other dialects. No significant differences in WRS based on ear or gender factors at the comfortable sensation level in normal hearing Jordanian subjects are reported in previous Jordanian studies.…”

“…No significant differences in WRS based on ear or gender factors at the comfortable sensation level in normal hearing Jordanian subjects are reported in previous Jordanian studies. 25 Arabic is a Semitic language that has three forms: "Classic Arabic" (e.g., Quran language), "Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)" (e.g., Current official language and in-print language), and "Colloquial Arabic" that is spoken in everyday conversa-tions and has multiple dialects according to the geographic region. MSA contains six main vowels divided into three short vowels (i.e., /a/, /i/, /u/), and three long vowels (i.e., /a:/, /i:/, and /u:/); and 28 consonants, including stops, fricatives, nasals, liquids, pharyngeal (e.g., / /), emphatic phonemes (e.g., /D/), two glides (i.e., /w/ and /y/), and the glottal Hamza (i.e., / /).…”

“…Finally, the glottal stop in Arabic (i.e., Hamza / /) is not represented appropriately at the beginning and at the end of the word in most previous studies. [23][24][25]27 The goal of the present study is to develop phonemically balanced Arabic monosyllabic word lists that include digitally recorded CNC words and represent all the Arabic consonants at the beginning and at the end of the word within each list to be used clinically in the audiological evaluation of the Jordanian population. The word lists in the present study were extracted from all possible CNC combinations in the Arabic language, which were carefully designed to have a true representation of all Arabic consonants including the Arabic glottal "Hamza / /" at the beginning and at the end of the word.…”