J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(05): 370-395
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17135
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

A Comparison of Word-Recognition Performances on the Auditec and VA Recorded Versions of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by Young Listeners with Normal Hearing and by Older Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Using a Randomized Presentation-Level Paradigm

Richard H. Wilson
*   Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

05 January 2018

10 January 2018

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)

Abstract

Background:

The Auditec of St. Louis and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recorded versions of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) are in common usage. Data on young adults with normal hearing for pure tones (YNH) demonstrate equal recognition performances on the two versions when the VA version is presented 5 dB higher but similar data on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (OHL) are lacking.

Purpose:

To compare word-recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions of NU-6 presented at six presentation levels with YNH and OHL listeners.

Research Design:

A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.

Study Sample:

Twelve YNH (M = 24.0 years; PTA = 9.9-dB HL) and 36 OHL listeners (M = 71.6 years; PTA = 26.7-dB HL) participated in three, one-hour sessions.

Data Collection and Analyses:

Each listener received 100 stimulus words that were randomized by 6 presentation levels for each of two speakers (YNH, −2 to 28-dB SL; OHL, −2 to 38-dB SL). The sessions were limited to 25 practice and 400 experimental words. Digital versions of the 16, 25-word tracks for each session were alternated between speakers.

Results:

Each of the 48 listeners had higher recognition performances on the Auditec version of NU-6 than on the VA version. The respective overall recognition performances on the Auditec and VA versions were 71.4% and 64.1% (YNH) and 68.7% and 58.2% (OHL). At the highest presentation levels, recognition performances on the two versions differed by only 0.5% (YNH) and 3.3% (OHL). At the 50% correct point, performances on the Auditec version were 3.2 dB (YNH) and 6.1 dB (OHL) better than those on the VA version. The slopes at the 50% points on the mean functions for both speakers were about 4.9%/dB (YNH) and 3.0%/dB (OHL); however, the slopes evaluated from the individual listener data were steeper, 5.2 to 5.3%/dB (YNH) and 3.3 to 3.5%/dB (OHL). When the individual data were transformed from dB SL to dB HL, the differences between the two listener groups were emphasized. The four functions (2 speakers by 2 listener groups) were plotted for each of the 48 participants and each of the 200 words, which revealed the gamut of relations among the datasets. Examination of the data for each speaker across test sessions, in the traditional 50-word lists, and in the typically used 25-word lists of Randomization A revealed no differences of clinical concern. Finally, introspective reports from the listeners revealed that 91.7% and 83.3% of the YNH and OHL listeners, respectively, thought the Auditec speaker was easier to understand than the VA speaker. Recognition performances on each participant and on each word are presented.

This work was supported by the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs through the Auditory and Vestibular Dysfunction Research Enhancement Award Program (REAP) at Mountain Home. Additional support was provided by the Arizona State University Foundation.


The data were collected by Cayce N. Griffin, Madison P. Thode, and Ashley E. Light as part of their capstone projects at East Tennessee State University. The contents of this article do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government.


Supplementary Material

 
  • REFERENCES

  • Adobe Systems, Inc. 2012. Adobe Audition CS6. San Jose, CA:
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1989. Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-1989 . New York, NY: ANSI;
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2010. Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2010 . New York, NY: ANSI;
  • American Standards Association (ASA) 1954. American Recommended Practice for Volume Measurements of Electrical Speech and Program Waves. C16.5-1954 . New York, NY: ASA;
  • Beattie RC, Edgerton BJ, Svihovec DV. 1977; A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord 42 (01) 60-64
  • Bilger RC. 1984; Speech recognition test development. Asha Rep 14: 2-15
  • Bladon RAW, Henton CG, Pickering JB. 1984; Towards an auditory theory of speaker normalization. Lang Commun 4 (01) 59-69
  • Brandy WT. 1966; Reliability of voice tests of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res 9 (03) 461-465
  • Campbell RA. 1965; Discrimination test word difficulty. J Speech Hear Res 8 (01) 13-22
  • Causey GD, Hermanson CL, Hood LJ, Bowling LS. 1983; A comparative evaluation of the Maryland NU 6 auditory test. J Speech Hear Disord 48 (01) 62-69
  • Chinn HA, Gannett DK, Morris RM. 1940; A new standard volume indicator and reference level. Bell Labs Tech J 19 (01) 94-137
  • Davis H. 1947. Tests of hearing. In: Davis H. Hearing and Deafness: A Guide for Laymen. New York, NY: Rinehart Books; 125-160
  • DeBow A, Green WB. 2000; A survey of Canadian audiological practices: pure tone and speech audiometry. J Speech Lang Audiol 24 (04) 153-161
  • Department of Veterans Affairs 2010. Speech Recognition and Identification Materials. Disc 4.0. Mountain Home, TN: VA Medical Center;
  • Egan JP. 1948; Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope 58 (09) 955-991
  • Egan JP. 1957; Remarks on rare PB words. J Acoust Soc Am 29 (06) 751
  • Elpern B. 1961; The relative stability of half list and full list discrimination tests. Laryngoscope 71 (01) 30-36
  • Grose JA, Mamo SK, Buss E, Hall JW. 2015; Temporal processing deficits in middle age. Am J Audiol 24 (02) 91-93
  • Grubb PA. 1963; Considerations in the use of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 6 (03) 294-297
  • Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. 1952; Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 17 (03) 321-337
  • House AS. 1961; On vowel duration in English. J Acoust Soc Am 33 (09) 1174-1178
  • House AS, Fairbanks G. 1953; The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 25 (01) 105-113
  • Hurley RM, Sells JP. 2003; An abbreviated word recognition protocol based on item difficulty. Ear Hear 24 (02) 111-118
  • Jacewicz E, Fox RA. 2008; Amplitude variations in coarticulated vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 123 (05) 2750-2768
  • Johnson K. 2005. Speaker normalization in speech perception. In: Pisoni DB, Remez RE. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 363-389
  • Lehiste I, Peterson GE. 1959; a Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 31 (03) 280-286
  • Lehiste I, Peterson GE. 1959; b Vowel amplitude and phonemic stress in American english. J Acoust Soc Am 31 (04) 428-435
  • Levitt H, Bricker PD. 1970; Reduction of observer bias in reading speech levels with a VU meter. J Acoust Soc Am 47 (6B) 1583-1587
  • Lobdell BE, Allen JB. 2007; A model of the VU (volume-unit) meter, with speech applications. J Acoust Soc Am 121 (01) 279-285
  • Kreul EJ, Bell DW, Nixon JC. 1969; Factors affecting speech discrimination test difficulty. J Speech Hear Res 12 (02) 281-287
  • Kreul EJ, Nixon JC, Kryter KD, Bell DW, Lang JS, Schubert ED. 1968; A proposed clinical test of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res 11 (03) 536-552
  • Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BC. 2010; AMTAS®: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 49 (03) 185-194
  • Margolis RH, Millin JP. 1971; An item-difficulty based speech discrimination test. J Speech Hear Res 14 (04) 865-873
  • Margolis RH, Saly GL, Le C, Laurence J. 2007; Qualind™: a method for assessing the accuracy of automated tests. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 78-89
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA. 1998; Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9 (02) 95-104
  • Mullennix JM, Pisoni DB, Martin CS. 1989; Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 85 (01) 365-378
  • Peterson GE, Lehiste I. 1962; Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27 (01) 62-70
  • Pisoni DB. 1997. Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 9-32
  • Resnick DM. 1962; Reliability of the twenty-five word phonetically balanced lists. J Aud Res 2 (01) 5-12
  • Robjohns H. 2013; Why do waveforms sometimes look lop-sided?. Sound on Sound 28 (07) 224
  • Sommers MS, Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB. 1994; Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition: I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am 96 (03) 1314-1324
  • Stevens SS, Egan JP, Miller GA. 1947; Methods of measuring speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 19 (05) 771-780
  • Stoppenbach DT, Craig JM, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. 1999; Word recognition performance for northwestern university auditory test No. 6 word lists in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (08) 429-435
  • Thorndike EL, Lorge I. 1944. The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University;
  • Thornton A, Raffin MJM. 1978; Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 21 (03) 507-518
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R. 1966 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 No. SAM-TR-66-55
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R, Wilber LA. 1963 A Test for Speech Discrimination Composed of CNC Monosyllabic Words (N. U. Auditory Test No. 4). Brooks Air Force Base, TX USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report No. SAM-TDR-135
  • Wiley TL, Stoppenbach DT, Feldhake LJ, Moss KA, Thordardottir ET. 1995; Audiologic practices: what is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol 4 (01) 26-34
  • Wilson RH. 2015; Amplitude (vu and rms) and temporal (ms) measures of two northwestern university auditory test No. 6 recordings. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (04) 346-354
  • Wilson RH, Coley KE, Haenel JL, Browning KM. 1976; Northwestern university auditory test No. 6: normative and comparative intelligibility functions. J Am Audiol Soc 1 (05) 221-228
  • Wilson RH, Margolis RH. 1983. Measurements of auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle DF, Rintelmann WF. Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 79-126
  • Wilson RH, McArdle R. 2013; Characteristics of the audiometric 4,000 Hz notch (744,553 veterans) and the 3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 Hz notches (539,932 veterans). J Rehab Res Develop 50 (01) 111-132
  • Wilson RH, McArdle R. 2015; The homogeneity with respect to intelligibility of recorded word-recognition materials. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (04) 331-345
  • Wilson RH, McArdle R, Roberts H. 2008; A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU—6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (06) 496-506
  • Wilson RH, Oyler AL. 1997; Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear 18 (05) 430-433
  • Wilson RH, Zizz CA, Shanks J, Causey GD. 1990; Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker. J Speech Hear Disord 55 (04) 771-778