PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 733252

Speech audiometry.

A Epstein
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Two aspects of speech audiometry, namely, the speech reception threshold and the speech discrimination scores, have been discussed in the light of their development and present day administration. Evidence was presented to forego the concept of phonetic balance in discrimination test messages for the preferable attributes of familiarity and equated list difficulty. Campbell's redistribution of the W-22 word lists was proposed as an available solution to one of these parameters. Some delineation of the single "maximal" discrimination score's relation to the prediction of the hearing impaired individual's ability to understand continuous discourse was offered. Diagnostic implications of speech audiometry were not treated.

Explore related subjects

AudiometryHumansSpeech Discrimination TestsSpeech Reception Threshold TestJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Epstein. 1978. Speech audiometry.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/733252/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds.

The performance on a conversation-following task by 24 hearing-impaired persons was compared with that of 24 matched controls with normal hearing in the presence of three background noises: (a) speech-spectrum random noise, (b) a male voice, and (c) the male voice played in reverse. The subjects' task was to readjust the sound level of a female voice (signal), every time the signal voice was attenuated, to the subjective level at which it was just possible to understand what was being said. To assess the benefit of lipreading, half of the material was presented audiovisually and half auditorily only. It was predicted that background speech would have a greater masking effect than reversed speech, which would in turn have a lesser masking effect than random noise. It was predicted that hearing-impaired subjects would perform more poorly than the normal-hearing controls in a background of speech. The influence of lipreading was expected to be constant across groups and conditions. The results showed that the hearing-impaired subjects were equally affected by the three background noises and that normal-hearing persons were less affected by the background speech than by noise. The performance of the normal-hearing persons was superior to that of the hearing-impaired subjects. The prediction about lipreading was confirmed. The results were explained in terms of the reduced temporal resolution by the hearing-impaired subjects.

Audiometry↗
PubMed1992

Analysis of the efficiency of retrocochlear screening.

The auditory brainstem response (ABR), as well as associated audiologic and radiographic studies of 175 patients suspected of having cerebellopontine angle tumors were reviewed. The majority of patients presented with asymmetric hearing loss. Eight acoustic neuromas were identified. All eight had abnormal ABRs. The false-positive rate was 22%. Rollover and acoustic reflex testing played a minimal role in the decision as to whether or not an ABR was ordered and, as a result, are not important in the search for retrocochlear disease. The cost per tumor diagnosed was roughly $7600. A rational approach to tumor screening based on the efficiency and cost of the screening tests, the frequency of abnormal ABRs, and the cost per tumor diagnosed is presented.

Audiometry↗