ORIGINAL ARTICLE
SPEECH PERCEPTION IN NOISE IN MALAYALAM-SPEAKING YOUNG ADULTS WITH NORMAL HEARING
Vipin Ghosh 1, A,D-E
,
 
Darshan Devananda 2, A,C,E-F
,
 
,
 
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
 
2
Department of Speech-Language Pathology, JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Dharwad, India
 
3
JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
 
These authors had equal contribution to this work
 
 
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;
 
 
Submission date: 2024-03-01
 
 
Final revision date: 2024-07-16
 
 
Acceptance date: 2024-07-18
 
 
Online publication date: 2024-08-01
 
 
Publication date: 2024-08-01
 
 
Corresponding author
Darshan Devananda   

Speech-Language Pathology Department, JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Kelageri, 570001, Dharwad, India
 
 
J Hear Sci 2024;14(2):33-38
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Various types of noise have been used with speech material to assess speech perception in noise (SPIN) abilities. The literature suggests that speech identification varies with different types of background noise, and it has been reported that the target native language and the language of the babbling influence performance. Such efforts in an Indian context have not yet been reported. The aim of the study is to evaluate the speech perception in noise performance of Malayalam-speaking young adults with normal hearing using three different background noises.

Material and methods:
A repeated measure research design were adopted with a random sampling method. 30 native Malayalam speakers with normal hearing between the ages of 18 and 25 participated in the study. A standardized sentence list in Malayalam was used as the speech stimulus. Nine lists were chosen and randomly divided so that there were three lists to each background noise. Noises were speech spectrum-shaped noise, non-native language multi-talker babble (Kannada), and native language multi-talker babble (Malayalam). Each successfully repeated keyword received a ‘1’ and each incorrectly repeated word received a ‘0.’ Because each sentence had four important words, each collection of 10 sentences scored a maximum of 40. The percentage of correct answers was determined and further analyzed.

Results:
Scores were significantly different in all three different background noises across different SNRs. The highest scores were obtained at +5 dB SNR and the poorest scores at –5 dB SNR. Among the three different background noises, native multi-talker babble (Malayalam) yielded better scores than non-native multi-talker babble (Kannada), followed last by speech spectrum-shaped noise.

Conclusions:
The findings of the current study may be attributed to the increased efficacy of speech spectrum noise due to its energetic masking characteristics and the similarity between the two languages in terms of its origin and acoustic-phonetic properties.

 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Gundmi A, Himaja P, Dhamani A. Effectiveness of multi-talker babble over speech noise and its implications: a comparative study. Indian J Otol, 2018; 24(2): 88. https://doi.org/10.4103/indian....
 
2.
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(4): 2395–405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1784....
 
3.
Prosser S, Turrini M, Arslan E. Effects of different noises on speech discrimination by the elderly. Acta Otolaryngol, 1991; 111 (Suppl 476): 136–42. https://doi.org/10.3109/000164....
 
4.
Taylor B. The acceptable noise level test as a predictor of real-world hearing aid benefit. Hear J, 2008; 61(9): 39–40, 42. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.....
 
5.
McArdle R, Hnath-Chisolm T. Speech audiometry. In: Katz J, Chasin M, English K, Hood LJ, Tillery KL, editors. Hand-book of Clinical Audiology. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015, p. 61–76.
 
6.
Bamiou DE, Iliadou VV, Zanchetta S, Spyridakou C. What can we learn about auditory processing from adult hearing questionnaires? J Am Acad Audiol, 2015; 26(10): 824–37. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.1....
 
7.
Jin SH, Liu Ch. English sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and multi-talker babble for English-, Chinese-, and Korean-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2012; 132(5): EL391–7. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4757....
 
8.
Jain C, Kodanath S, Vimal BM, Suresh V. Influence of native and non-native multitalker babble on speech recognition in noise. Audiol Res, 2014; 4(1): 89. https://doi.org/10.4081/audior....
 
9.
Amiri M, Mohammadi M, Razavi SZ, Abdollahi H, Iran Pour Mobarakeh Z. Normative data for speech-in-noise perception test in young adults with normal hearing: gender and ear laterality effects. Aud Vestib Res, 2023; 32(1): 64–9. https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v....
 
10.
Ramakrishna BS, Nair KK, Chiplimear VN, Atal BS, Ramachandran V, Subramanian R. Some aspects of the relative efficiencies of Indian languages. Department of Electrical Communication Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 1962.
 
11.
Van Engen KJ, Bradlow AR. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 2007; 121(1): 519–26. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2400....
 
12.
Shojaei E, Ashayeri H, Jafar Z, Zarrin Dast MR, Kamali K. Effect of signal to noise ratio on the speech perception ability of older adults. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2016; 30: 342.
 
13.
Razak A, Thurston EJ, Gustainis LE, Kidd G, Swaminathan J, Perrachione TK. Talker identification in three types of background noise. J Acoustic Soc Am, 2017; 141(5): 4039. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4989....
 
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top