Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ASSESSMENT OF THE CLINICAL UTILITY OF THE SENTENCE IDENTIFICATION TEST IN KANNADA FOR ADULTS
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, India
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2021-12-03
Corresponding author
Geetha Chinnaraj
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, 570006, Mysuru, India
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, 570006, Mysuru, India
J Hear Sci 2021;11(3):32-37
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
A sentence identification test was developed by Geetha, Kumar, Manjula, and Pavan (2014) in the Kannada language. The test consists of 25 equivalent sentence lists with 10 sentences each. The present study aimed to assess the clinical utility of this test.
Material and methods:
All sentences were presented to 5 groups of adults with 10 individuals in each group. Four groups, each of 10 individuals, had hearing loss: mild, moderate, moderately-severe, or severe. The fifth group had 40 individuals with normal hearing sensitivity. Standardized lists of 25 sentences were presented monaurally at the most comfortable level in a sound-treated double room. The number of correctly identified words was tabulated.
Results:
The mean identification scores decreased with increase in the degree of hearing loss, although the scores were comparable between the normal and mild group. A comparison of scores between each list within each group revealed that there was no significant difference between the lists for the scores obtained from the individuals with mild, moderate, moderately-severe, and severe degrees of hearing loss.
Conclusions:
The developed sentence material is sensitive to differences in speech identification ability across different degrees of hearing loss. In addition, the mean number of correctly identified words do not vary across the lists in any of the four groups, suggesting equivalency across the standardized 25 lists in the clinical groups.
A sentence identification test was developed by Geetha, Kumar, Manjula, and Pavan (2014) in the Kannada language. The test consists of 25 equivalent sentence lists with 10 sentences each. The present study aimed to assess the clinical utility of this test.
Material and methods:
All sentences were presented to 5 groups of adults with 10 individuals in each group. Four groups, each of 10 individuals, had hearing loss: mild, moderate, moderately-severe, or severe. The fifth group had 40 individuals with normal hearing sensitivity. Standardized lists of 25 sentences were presented monaurally at the most comfortable level in a sound-treated double room. The number of correctly identified words was tabulated.
Results:
The mean identification scores decreased with increase in the degree of hearing loss, although the scores were comparable between the normal and mild group. A comparison of scores between each list within each group revealed that there was no significant difference between the lists for the scores obtained from the individuals with mild, moderate, moderately-severe, and severe degrees of hearing loss.
Conclusions:
The developed sentence material is sensitive to differences in speech identification ability across different degrees of hearing loss. In addition, the mean number of correctly identified words do not vary across the lists in any of the four groups, suggesting equivalency across the standardized 25 lists in the clinical groups.
REFERENCES (38)
1.
Mueller GH. Speech audiometry and hearing aid fittings: going steady or casual acquaintances? Hear J, 2001; 54(10): 19–29.
2.
Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Word recognition in multitalker babble measured with two psychophysical methods. J Am Acad Audiol, 2005; 16: 627–36.
3.
Wilson RH, McArdle RA. Speech signals used to evaluate the functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2005; 42 (Suppl 2): 79–94.
4.
Tyler R. The use of speech-perception tests in audiological rehabilitation: current and future research needs. J Acad Rehabil Audiol, 1994; 27: 47–56.
5.
Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 102(4): 2412–21.
6.
Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116: 2395–405.
7.
Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol, 1951; 41(5): 329–35.
8.
Silverman SF, Hirsh IJ. Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1955; 64: 1234–55.
9.
Plomp R, Mirapen A. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979; 66: 1333–42.
10.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 1085–99.
11.
Neilsen JB, Dau T. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48: 729–41.
12.
Wong LL, Soli SD, Liu S, Han N, Huang MW. Development of the Mandarin Hearing In Noise test (MHINT). Ear Hear, 2007; 28(Suppl 2): 70S–74S.
13.
Wong LL, Soli SD. Development of the Cantonese Hearing In Noise test (CHINT). Ear Hear, 2005; 26(3): 276–89.
14.
Delattre P. Comparing the vocalic features of English, German, Spanish and French. Int Rev Appl Linguist, 1964; 2: 71–98.
15.
Geetha C, Kumar KSS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardization of sentence identification test in Kannada language. J Hear Sci, 2014; 4(1): 18–26.
16.
Manjula P, Antony J, Kumar SS, Geetha C. Assessment of clinical utility of phonemically balanced word lists for adult speakers of Kannada. J Hear Sci, 2018; 8(3): 40–5.
17.
Killion M. SNR loss: “I can hear what people say but I cannot understand them”. Hear Rev, 1997; 4(12): 8,10,12,14.
18.
Rahana NVV, Yathiraj A. Development of high and low predictable English sentence test. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, University of Mysore: Mysore; 2007.
19.
Gelfand SA, Schwander T, Silman S. Acoustic reflex thresholds in normal and cochlear-impaired ears: effects of no-response rates on 90th percentiles in a large sample. J Speech Hear Dis, 1990; 55: 198–205.
20.
ANSI. Criteria for permissible ambient noise during audiometric testing. American National Standards Institute. S3.1-1999: New York; 1999.
21.
Yellin MW, Jerger J, Fifer R. Norms for disproportionately poor speech intelligibility. Ear Hear, 1989; 10: 231–4.
22.
Moore BCJ, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcantara JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol, 2000; 34: 205–24.
23.
Moore BCJ, Lynch C, Stone MA. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol, 1992; 26: 369–79.
24.
Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear, 1994; 15: 2–12.
25.
Pekkerinan E, Salmivalli A, Suonpaa J. Effect of noise on word discrimination by subjects with impaired hearing, compared with those with normal hearing. Scand Audiol, 1990; 19: 31–6.
26.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 95(2): 1085–99.
27.
Rippy JV, Dancer JE, Pittenger JB. List equivalency of the CID everyday sentences (Harris revision) under three signal-to-noise ratios. Ear Hear, 1983; 4(5): 251–54.
28.
Moore BCJ. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear, 1996; 17: 133–61.
29.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear, 2012; 32(4): 1–6.
30.
Mathai JP, Mohammed H. Effect of hearing aid release time and presentation level on speech perception in noise in elderly individuals with hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2017; 274(2): 671–7.
31.
Geetha C, Tanniru K, Rajan R. Efficacy of directional microphones in hearing aids equipped with wireless synchronization technology. J Int Adv Otol, 2017; 13(1): 113–7.
32.
Shetty HN, Nanjundaswamy NB. The effect of digital noise reduction on annoyance and speech perception in low and high acceptable noise level groups. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2019; 23(4): e433–e439.
33.
Megha J, Maruthy S. Auditory and cognitive attributes of hearing aid acclimatization in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 2019; 28: 460–70.
34.
Shetty HN, Pottackal JM. Gain adjustment at tinnitus pitch to manage both tinnitus and speech perception in noise. J Otol, 2019; 14(4):141–8.
35.
Jain S, Nataraja NP. Effect of age and hearing loss on sentence perception in noise using temporal envelope and temporal fine structure cues. Hear Bal Commun, 2019; 17(1): 61–8.
36.
Jain S, Nataraja NP. The relationship between temporal integration and temporal envelope perception in noise by males with mild sensorineural hearing loss. J Int Adv Otol, 2019; 15(2): 257–62.
37.
Nayana M, Parmeshwara KS, Geetha C. Effect of number of talkers and language of babble on acceptable noise level in Kannada listeners. Hear Bal Commun, 2018; 16(4): 241–7.
38.
Geetha C, Manjula P. Effect of compression, digital noise reduction and directionality on envelope difference index, log-likelihood ratio and perceived quality. Audiol Res, 2014; 4(1): 46–51.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
