Diagnostic Accuracy of the AzBio Speech Recognition in Noise Test.

Purpose The goal of this study was to determine the ability of the AzBio speech recognition in noise (SRN) test to distinguish between groups of participants with and without a self-reported SRN disorder and a self-reported signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss. Method Fifty-four native English-speaking young adults with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤ 25 dB HL, 0.25-6.0 kHz) participated. Individuals who reported hearing difficulty in a noisy restaurant (Reference Standard 1) were placed in the SRN disorder group. SNR loss groups were created based on the self-report of the ability to hear Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in steady-state speech-shaped noise, four-talker babble, and 20-talker babble in a controlled listening environment (Reference Standard 2). Participants with HINT thresholds poorer than or equal to the median were assigned to the SNR loss group. Results The area under the curve from the receiver operating characteristics curves revealed that the AzBio test was not a significant predictor of an SRN disorder, or an SNR loss using the steady-state noise Reference Standard 2 condition. However, the AzBio was a significant predictor of an SNR loss using the four-talker babble and 20-talker babble Reference Standard 2 conditions (p < .05). The AzBio was a significant predictor of an SNR loss when using the average HINT thresholds across the three Reference Standard 2 masker conditions (area under the curve = .79, p = .001). Conclusions The AzBio test was not a significant predictor of a self-reported SRN disorder or a self-reported SNR loss in steady-state noise. However, it was a significant predictor of a self-reported SNR loss in babble noise and the average across all noise conditions. A battery of reference standard tests with a range of maskers in a controlled listening environment is recommended for diagnostic accuracy evaluations of SRN tests.

A convergent validity study: Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S) test and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT).

OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to compare Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentence (LiSN-S) test and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) thresholds in order to determine if the two tests measure the same construct (convergent validity). The secondary purpose was to determine performance differences between the two test protocols. The third purpose was to determine the relationships between quiet measures (pure-tone average [PTA] and HINT Quiet thresholds) vs. speech-in-noise performances. DESIGN: Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman rho statistic, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear mixed model analyses. Study sample: Fifty-six young adults with normal PTAs (≤15 dB HL for 0.5-4.0 kHz) participated in this study. RESULTS: No statistically significant relationships were found between LiSN-S and HINT measures (poor convergent validity). However, statistically significant relationships were found between the quiet measures (HINT Quiet thresholds and average PTA(0.5-4.0 kHz)) vs. the LiSN-S (same and different voices) ±90° performances. CONCLUSION: LiSN-S performances in two-talker babble cannot be generalized to the ability to recognise HINT sentences in steady-state speech-shaped noise, and vice versa. The results imply that LiSN-S ± 90° thresholds were influenced by hearing sensitivity or by supra-threshold distortions that co-vary with hearing sensitivity.

The relationship between speech recognition in noise and non-speech recognition in noise test performances: Implications for central auditory processing disorders testing.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Audiology, a recommendation for frequency-modulation systems may be based upon performances on speech perception tests that do not include background noise. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the presumption that non-speech recognition in noise test results are related to speech recognition in noise ability for a group of young adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: Performances on the non-speech recognition in noise tests included in the SCAN-3:A test battery were compared to speech recognition in noise performances as measured with the auditory figure ground subtest of the SCAN-3:A and the Hearing in Noise Test. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-four young, native speakers of American English with normal pure-tone thresholds participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the purposes of this study, the SCAN-3:A raw scores were used. The Hearing in Noise Test was administered in a simulated soundfield environment under headphones. The Spearman rho statistic was used to determine the relationships between non-speech recognition in noise vs. speech recognition in noise test results. RESULTS: No significant relationships were found between the auditory figure-ground results and any of the non-speech recognition in noise subtest performances. Modest but statistically significant relationships were found between the Hearing in Noise Test Composite scores vs. the competing words-directed ear and the time compressed sentences subtests of the SCAN-3:A. CONCLUSION: Of the four non-speech recognition in noise subtests that were evaluated, only the competing words-directed ear and the time-compressed sentences performances were significantly correlated to the Composite scores of the Hearing in Noise Test. The results demonstrated a limited external validity for two of the four non-SRN tests for the determination of SRN ability.