Download PDF
Semin Hear 2004; 25(1): 93-111
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-823051
Published in 2004 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Use of Digit Triplets to Evaluate Word-Recognition Abilities in Multitalker Babble

Richard H. Wilson1 , Deborah G. Weakley1
  • 1James H. Quillen VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee, and Departments of Surgery and Communicative Disorders, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee
Reflections on Tom When I arrived at Northwestern in the fall of 1967, I immediately identified with Tom (whom at the time I called Dr. Tillman). He was the only person on the faculty who talked as “twangy” and “country” as I. Tom's drawl was passed off as “general American, Southern fringe”, but this masquerade I attribute to academia. Importantly to me, Tom served as a model that people from the “Southern fringe” could be successful in the great Northern halls of higher education.Throughout the years since my student days at Northwestern, Tom, without hesitation, would respond to any requests I had, even those that appeared trivial. Several weeks before he passed away, I asked Tom if he could put his hands on the raw data for the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 20, which is the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in a competing message paradigm. On my behalf, Tom rummaged through the archives-which I think were located in a basement, somewhere long forgotten-in search of the requested materials. Tom was that kind of person, a model gentleman and a model academic. We need more people like Tom.Richard H. Wilson
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 April 2004 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using digit triplets in multitalker babble as a paradigm to measure the ability of patients to understand speech in background noise. Nine digits (one to ten, excluding seven) were randomized into triplet sets and embedded in multitalker babble at 6- to -20-dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios. Recognition performances by 24 listeners with normal hearing and 48 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were measured for the digit triplets and for monosyllabic words both in multitalker babble presented at 80-dB SPL. There was essentially no overlap between the distributions of performances by the two groups of listeners on either of the materials. For both groups of listeners, the difference between performances on the materials at the 50% point was approximately 18 dB. Both the word and digit materials in a background of multitalker babble are sensitive to the inabilities of listeners with hearing loss to understand speech in background noise.

KEYWORDS

Auditory perception - hearing loss - speech perception - word recognition in multitalker babble

References

  • 1 Hirsh I J. Binaural hearing aids: A review of some experiments.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1950;  15 114-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Carhart R, Tillman T W. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing loss.  Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;  91 273-279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Keith R W, Talis H P. The use of speech in noise in diagnostic audiometry.  J Aud Res. 1970;  10 201-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tillman T W, Carhart R, Olsen W O. Hearing aid efficiency in a competing speech situation.  J Speech Hear Res. 1970;  13 789-811
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Olsen W O, Noffsinger D, Kurdziel S. Speech discrimination in quiet and in white noise by patients with peripheral and central lesions.  Acta Otolaryngol. 1975;  80 375-382
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dubno J R, Dirks D D, Morgan D E. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;  76 87-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gordon-Salant S. Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm.  Ear Hear. 1987;  8 277-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Beattie R C. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;  54 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Souza P E, Turner C W. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss.  J Speech Hear Res. 1994;  37 655-661
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Divenyi P L, Haupt K M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. I. Age and lateral asymmetry effects.  Ear Hear. 1997a;  18 42-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Divenyi P L, Haupt K M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis.  Ear Hear. 1997b;  18 100-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Divenyi P L, Haupt K M. Audiological correlates of speech understanding deficits in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. III. Factor representation.  Ear Hear. 1997c;  18 189-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Plomp R, Duquesnoy A J. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid.  Scand Audiol. 1982;  15 95-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Martin F N, Champlin C A, Chambers J A. Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 95-104
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mueller H G. Speech audiometry and hearing aid fittings: Going steady or casual acquaintances.  Hear J. 2001;  54 19-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;  63 533-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Moore B CJ, Huss M, Vickers D A, Glasberg B R, Alcántara J I. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea.  Br J Audiol. 2000;  34 205-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cherry C. On Human Communication, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1966
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Cherry E C. Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and with two ears.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1953;  25 975-979
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tillman T W, Carhart R. An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words.  , Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Brooks Air Force Base, TX USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report 1966; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Department of Veterans Affairs .Speech Recognition and Identification Materials, Disc 2.0 Mountain Home, TN; VA Medical Center 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Wilson R H. Development of a speech in multitalker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;  14 453-470
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wilson R H, Abrams H B, Pillion A L. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24-dB S/B to 0-dB S/B.  J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;  , (in press)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Smits C, Kapteyn T S, Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic SRT screening test by telephone.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  43 15-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wilson R H, Jaffe M S. Interactions of Age, Ear, and Stimulus Complexity on Dichotic Digit Recognition.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;  7 358-364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Strouse A L, Wilson R H. Recognition of 1-, 2-, and 3-pair Dichotic Digits under Free and Directed Recall.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;  10 557-571
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kimura D. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli.  Can J Psychol. 1961;  15 166-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Miller G A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.  Psychol Rev. 1956;  63 81-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Miller G A, Heise G A, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.  J Exp Psychol. 1951;  41 329-335
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Egan J. Articulation testing methods.  Laryngoscope. 1948;  58 955-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Miller G A. Language and Communication. New York; McGraw Hill 1951
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Ramkissoon I, Proctor A, Lansing C R, Bilger R C. Digit speech recognition thresholds (SRT) for non-native speakers of English.  Am J Audiol. 2002;  11 23-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sperry J L, Wiley T L, Chial M R. Word recognition performance in various background competitors.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;  8 71-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Finney D J. Statistical Method in Biological Assay. London; C. Griffen 1952
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Department of Veterans Affairs .Tonal and Speech Materials for Auditory Perceptual Assessment, CD 2.0 Mountain Home, TN; VA Medical Center 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 36 American National Standards Institute .Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York; Author 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Wilson R H, Margolis R H. Measurement of the auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle D, Rintelmann W Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore, MD; University Park Press 1983: 79-126
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Versveld N J, Daalder L, Festen J M, Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;  107 1671-1684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Richard H WilsonPh.D. 

VA Medical Center, Audiology (126)

Mountain Home, TN 37684

Email: RICHARD.WILSON2@MED.VA.GOV

      >