Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(10): 948-954
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18005
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Relationship between Random Gap Detection and Hearing in Noise Test Performances

Paige Heeke
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Andrew J. Vermiglio
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Emery Bulla
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Keerthana Velappan
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Xiangming Fang
†   Department of Biostatistics, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 January 2018

16 April 2018

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Temporal acoustic cues are particularly important for speech understanding, and past research has inferred a relationship between temporal resolution and speech recognition in noise ability. A temporal resolution disorder is thought to affect speech understanding abilities because persons would not be able to accurately encode these frequency transitions, creating speech discrimination errors even in the presence of normal pure-tone hearing.

Purpose:

The primary purpose was to investigate the relationship between temporal resolution as measured by the Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) and speech recognition in noise performance as measured by the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in adults with normal audiometric thresholds. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between temporal resolution and spatial release from masking.

Research Design:

The HINT and RGDT protocols were administered under headphones according to the guidelines specified by the developers. The HINT uses an adaptive protocol to determine the signal-to-noise ratio where the participant recognizes 50% of the sentences. For HINT conditions, the target sentences were presented at 0° and the steady-state speech-shaped noise and a four-talker babble (4TB) was presented at 0°, +90°, or −90° for noise front, noise right, and noise left conditions, respectively. The RGDT is used to evaluate temporal resolution by determining the smallest time interval between two matching stimuli that can be detected by the participant. The RGDT threshold is the shortest time interval where the participant detects a gap. Tonal (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and click stimuli random gap subtests were presented at 60 dB HL. Tonal subtests were presented in a random order to minimize presentation order effects.

Study Sample:

Twenty-one young, native English-speaking participants with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤25 dB HL for 500–4000 Hz) participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 20.2 years (SD = 0.66).

Data Collection and Analysis:

Spearman rho correlation coefficients were conducted using SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to determine the relationships between HINT and RGDT thresholds and derived measures (spatial advantage and composite scores). Nonparametric testing was used because of the ordinal nature of RGDT data.

Results:

Moderate negative correlations (p < 0.05) were found between eight RGDT and HINT threshold measures and a moderate positive correlation (p < 0.05) was found between RGDT click thresholds and HINT 4TB spatial advantage. This suggests that as temporal resolution abilities worsened, speech recognition in noise performance improved. These correlations were not statistically significant after the p value reflected the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Conclusion:

The results of the present study imply that the RGDT and HINT use different temporal processes. Performance on the RGDT cannot be predicted from HINT thresholds or vice versa.

Key Words

speech recognition in noise - temporal resolution

Presented as a poster presentation at the American Academy of Audiology Conference in Indianapolis, IN, April 7, 2017.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Balen SA, Bretzke L, Mottecy CM, Liebel G, Boeno MRM, Gondim LMA. 2009; Temporal resolution in children: comparing normal hearing, conductive hearing loss and auditory processing disorder. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 75 (01) 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB, Horwitz AR. 2002; Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (06) 1297-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Feng Y, Yin S, Kiefte M, Wang J. 2010; Temporal resolution in regions of normal hearing and speech perception in noise for adults with sloping high-frequency hearing loss. Ear Hear 31 (01) 115-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fu QJ. 2002; Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 13 (13) 1635-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1993; Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 36 (06) 1276-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hoover E, Pasquesi L, Souza P. 2015; Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (06) 540-546
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keith RW. 2000. Random Gap Detection Test. St. Louis, MO: Auditec of St Louis Ltd; www.auditec.com
    Google Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; 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 116 (04) 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Middelweerd MJ, Festen JM, Plomp R. 1990; Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram: original papers. Audiology 29 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou D-E, Baran JA, Zaidan E. 2005; GIN (gaps-in-noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 26 (06) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Phillips DP. 1999; Auditory gap detection, perceptual channels, and temporal resolution in speech perception. J Am Acad Audiol 10: 343-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. 1995; Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270 (5234): 303-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stephens D, Zhao F, Kennedy V. 2003; Is there an association between noise exposure and King Kopetzky syndrome?. Noise Health 5 (20) 55-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tremblay KL, Pinto A, Fischer ME, Klein BE, Klein R, Levy S, Tweed TS, Cruickshanks KJ. 2015; Self-reported hearing difficulties among adults with normal audiograms: the beaver Dam offspring study. Ear Hear 36 (06) e290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tyler RS, Summerfield Q, Wood EJ, Fernandes MA. 1982; Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 72 (03) 740-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vermiglio AJ. 2008; The American English hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol 47 (06) 386-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Yalçınkaya F, Muluk NB, Ataş A, Keith RW. 2009; Random gap detection test and random gap detection test-expanded results in children with auditory neuropathy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 73 (11) 1558-1563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar