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 as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
SPEECH AUDIOMETRY: NONSENSE MONOSYLLABIC LISTS IN
MODERN GREEK
1
Technological Educational Institute of Patras, Greece
2
University of Thessaly, Greece
3
University Hospital of Patras, Greece
Publication date: 2012-09-30
Corresponding author
Nikolaos Trimmis
Nikolaos Trimmis, 1 M. Alexandrou str, Koukouli, GR26334, Patra, Greece, e-mail: trimmis@teipat.gr
Nikolaos Trimmis, 1 M. Alexandrou str, Koukouli, GR26334, Patra, Greece, e-mail: trimmis@teipat.gr
J Hear Sci 2012;2(3):41-49
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The purpose of the present study was to develop a nonsense suprathreshold speech audiometry test for native speakers of Modern Greek. The specific aims were to construct phonemically balanced lists of nonsense monosyllables and to perform a preliminary investigation of list equivalence.
Material and Methods:
Nonsense monosyllables with possible CV, VC, and CVC phonemic combinations in Greek were chosen as stimuli. To examine list equivalency, the final recorded lists were administered monaurally in 5 dB increments to 40 adults (20 males and 20 females) whose hearing was within normal limits.
Results:
A nonsense monosyllabic speech audiometry test for speakers of Modern Greek has been developed. The test material consists of two lists, each of which contains 50 open-set monosyllabic combinations. The lists satisfied the criteria of equal phonemic balance, composition of Modern Greek speech, phonemic differentiation, and equal average difficulty. Statistical analysis of the results revealed no statistical significant differences among the lists at the 0.05 level.
Conclusions:
These findings suggest that the test is a useful tool for clinical purposes.
The purpose of the present study was to develop a nonsense suprathreshold speech audiometry test for native speakers of Modern Greek. The specific aims were to construct phonemically balanced lists of nonsense monosyllables and to perform a preliminary investigation of list equivalence.
Material and Methods:
Nonsense monosyllables with possible CV, VC, and CVC phonemic combinations in Greek were chosen as stimuli. To examine list equivalency, the final recorded lists were administered monaurally in 5 dB increments to 40 adults (20 males and 20 females) whose hearing was within normal limits.
Results:
A nonsense monosyllabic speech audiometry test for speakers of Modern Greek has been developed. The test material consists of two lists, each of which contains 50 open-set monosyllabic combinations. The lists satisfied the criteria of equal phonemic balance, composition of Modern Greek speech, phonemic differentiation, and equal average difficulty. Statistical analysis of the results revealed no statistical significant differences among the lists at the 0.05 level.
Conclusions:
These findings suggest that the test is a useful tool for clinical purposes.
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Martin F, Armstrong T, Champlin C: A survey of audiological practices in the United States. Am J Audiol, 1994; 3: 20–26.
2.
American Speech-Language Hearing Association. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. ASHA, 1988; 30: 85–89.
3.
Carhart R: Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol, 1951; 40: 62–71.
4.
Trimmis N, Papadeas E, Papadas T et al: Speech Audiometry: The Development of Modern Greek Word Lists for Suprathreshold Word Recognition Testing. The Mediterranean Journal of Otology, 2006; 2(3): 117–26.
5.
Iliadou V, Fourakis M, Vakalos A et al: Bi-syllabic, Modern Greek word lists for use in word recognition tests. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45: 74–82.
6.
Brad AS: Clinical Audiology-An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Delmar, Cengage Learning; 2010.
7.
Martin M (ed.): Speech audiometry. 2nd ed. London, England: Whurr Publishers Ltd.; 1997.
9.
Resnick SB, Dubno JR, Hoffnung S et al: Phoneme errors in a nonsense syllable test. J Acoust Soc Am, 1975; 58(Suppl.1): S114(A).
10.
Levitt H, Resnick SB: Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and the development of new tests. Scandinavian Audiology, 1978; (Suppl.6): 107–130.
11.
Edgerton BJ, Danhauer JL: Clinical Implication of Speech Discrimination Testing Using Nonsense Stimuli. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
12.
Kuk F, Lau CC, Korhonen P et al: Development of the ORCA Nonsense Syllable Test. Ear and Hearing, 2010; 31(6): 779–95.
13.
Trimmis N, Markatos N, Malaperdas K, Papadas T: Development of an Audio Compact Disc for Speech Audiometry Testing. Proceedings of the 8th EFAS Congress: Joint meeting with the 10th Congress of the German Society of Audiology; 2007 June 6–9; Heidelberg, Germany. Oldenburg: German Society of Audiology; 2008.
14.
Trimmis N, Papadeas E, Papadas T et al: A Modern Greek Word Recognition Score Test Designed for School Aged Children. The Mediterranean Journal of Otology, 2008; 4(1): 1–8.
15.
Thrasyvoulou G, Marinakis K: Speech Audiometry in everyday practice. Hellenic Otorhinolaryngology-Head an Neck Surgery, 2010; 2: 101–4.
16.
Trimmis N, Makri V, Markatos N, Gouma P: Development of a nonsense speech recognition test in Modern Greek. Proceedings of the 9th EFAS Congress: Joint meeting with the VI Congress of the Spanish Society of Audiology, 2009 June 21–24; Canary Islands, Spain.
17.
Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD: The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 11: 489–94.
18.
American National Standards Institute. Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. New York: ANSI, 1999.
19.
Raffin MJ, Schafer D: Application of a probability model based on the binomial distribution to speech-discrimination scores. J Speech Hear Res, 1980; 23: 570–75.
20.
Raffin MJ, Thornton A: Confidence levels for differences between speech discrimination scores. J Speech Hear Res, 1980; 23: 5–18.
21.
Thornton A, Raffin MJ: Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 1978; 21: 507–18.
22.
Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M, Sehgal ST, Miyamoto RT: Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 2000; 185: 79–81.
23.
Jamieson DG, Kranjc G, Yu K et al: Speech intelligibility of young school-aged children in the presence of real-life classroom noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 2004; 15(7): 508–17.
24.
Zakrzewski A, Jassem W, Pruszewicz A, Obrebowski A: Identification and Discrimination of Speech Sounds in Monosyllabic Meaningful Words and Nonsense Words by Children. Int J Audiol, 1975; 14(1): 21–26.
25.
Woods DL, Yund EW, Herron TJ: Measuring consonant identification in nonsense syllables, words, and sentences. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2010; 47(3): 243–60.
26.
Butts FM, Ruth RR, Schoeny ZG: Nonsense Syllable Test (NST)- Results and Hearing Loss. Ear and Hearing, 1987; 8(1): 44–48.
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.
