Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Cox, Robyn M.; Alexander, Genevieve C.; Gilmore, Christine; Pusakulich, Kay M.

doi:10.1097/00003446-198808000-00005

Cited by 127 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Noise, when present, consisted of four female talkers reading passages from the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987;Cox, Alexander, Gilmore, & Pusakulich, 1988), as previously described by . Adults were tested with −4 dB SNR.…”

Section: Primary Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child–Adult Differences in Using Dual-Task Paradigms to Measure Listening Effort

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of the project was to investigate the effects modifying the secondary task in a dual-task paradigm to measure objective listening effort. To be specific, the complexity and depth of processing were increased relative to a simple secondary task. Method: Three dual-task paradigms were developed for school-age children. The primary task was word recognition. The secondary task was a physical response to a visual probe (simple task), a physical response to a complex probe (increased complexity), or word categorization (increased depth of processing). Sixteen adults (22-32 years, M = 25.4) and 22 children (9-17 years, M = 13.2) were tested using the 3 paradigms in quiet and noise.Results: For both groups, manipulations of the secondary task did not affect word recognition performance. For adults, increasing depth of processing increased the calculated effect of noise; however, for children, results with the deep secondary task were the least stable. Conclusions: Manipulations of the secondary task differentially affected adults and children. Consistent with previous findings, increased depth of processing enhanced paradigm sensitivity for adults. However, younger participants were more likely to demonstrate the expected effects of noise on listening effort using a secondary task that did not require deep processing.

show abstract

Section: Primary Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child–Adult Differences in Using Dual-Task Paradigms to Measure Listening Effort

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most efforts for establishing an instrument that measured speech in background noise involved speech in sentences [27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. However, the use of sentences has not been widely accepted because clinical audiologists prefer monosyllabic words [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol

Wilson

Burks²

2005

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Data from earlier studies that presented 70 words at 24 to 0 dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios indicated that most young listeners with normal hearing required 0 to 6 dB S/B ratios to attain 50% correct word recognition. Older listeners with hearing loss often required a >12 dB S/B ratio to attain 50% correct word recognition. In our study, we converted the Words in Noise test from one 70-word list into two 35-word lists for quicker administration by clinicians. Using baseline data from previous studies, we used two strategies to randomize the 35-word lists: based on recognition performance at each S/B ratio and based on recognition performance only. With the first randomization strategy, the 50% correct word-recognition points on the two lists differed by 0.5 dB for 72 listeners with hearing loss. With the second randomization strategy, 48 listeners with hearing loss performed identically on the two lists.

show abstract

“…Plyler et al (2005a) examined the effects of expansion on the objective and subjective performance of twenty hearing instrument users with varying degrees of hearing loss. Objective performance was evaluated in quiet using the Connected Speech Test (CST) (Cox et al, 1987;Cox et al, 1988) and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) (Nilsson et al, 1994). Subjective performance was evaluated by having each participant rate their satisfaction regarding the amount of noise reduction they perceived in each expansion condition on a daily basis and by having each participant indicate which expansion condition they preferred following the completion of a two-week trial.…”

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 99%

The subjective evaluation of the expansion time constant in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments

Plyler

Trine

Hill

2006

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the subjective evaluation of expansion time constants in single-channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearing instruments. Thirty participants utilized binaural WDRC hearing instruments for a two-week trial. Subjective evaluations were conducted by having each participant rate their satisfaction with the expansion time constant on a daily basis and by having each participant indicate their preferred expansion time constant following the completion of the two-week trial. Each change in expansion time constant significantly affected listener satisfaction; however, all time constants resulted in satisfactory performance. Of the users expressing a preference, 75% preferred fast-acting over slow-acting expansion. These findings suggest that dynamic expansion parameters play an important role in determining the effectiveness of the feature for a given listener.

show abstract

Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Cited by 127 publications

References 0 publications

Child–Adult Differences in Using Dual-Task Paradigms to Measure Listening Effort

Child–Adult Differences in Using Dual-Task Paradigms to Measure Listening Effort

Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol

The subjective evaluation of the expansion time constant in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About