Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2156-4393
Research Article

Measuring Objective and Subjective Intelligibility Using Speech Materials from the Tracking of Noise Tolerance (TNT) Test

Francis Kuk
1   WS Audiology, Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, Illinois
,
Christopher Slugocki
1   WS Audiology, Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, Illinois
,
Petri Korhonen
1   WS Audiology, Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The results of tests measuring objective speech intelligibility are similar to those measuring subjective speech intelligibility using speech materials with minimal context. It is unclear if such is the case with contextual materials.

Purpose This article compares objective and subjective intelligibility difference (OSID) between normal hearing (NH) and hearing impaired (HI) listeners in the unaided and aided modes using speech materials adapted from the Tracking of Noise Tolerance (TNT) test.

Research Design Single-blind within-subjects design.

Study Sample Twenty-four NH and 17 HI older adults.

Data Collection and Analysis Listeners completed the objective and subjective intelligibility measures at 75 and 82 dB sound pressure level (SPL) speech input levels. Five signal-to-noise ratios were tested to generate the objective and subjective speech intelligibility performance intensity (P-I) functions. Both NH and HI listeners were tested in the unaided mode. The HI listeners were also tested using their own hearing aids (HAs). Objective and subjective speech reception thresholds at a 50% criterion (SRT50s) were estimated from each individual P-I function. The difference between the objective SRT50 and subjective SRT50 was used to estimate OSID.

Results Objective and subjective SRT50s were significantly better in NH than in HI listeners (chi-square(1) = 26.29, p < 0.001) at each speech input level in the unaided mode. However, there was a significant interaction between listener group and intelligibility type (chi-square(1) = 9.43, p = 0.002) where SRT50s were lower for subjective than objective P-I functions only in the HI group. The SRT50s of HI listeners were also affected by hearing mode, where both objective and subjective intelligibility was improved when HI listeners were tested while wearing their own HAs. In general, objective and subjective SRT50s showed moderate-to-strong correlations across most combinations of listener groups and test conditions (r = 0.59–0.86, p < 0.01) except for HI listeners tested with their own HAs (r = 0.39, p = 0.128).

Conclusion Similar objective and subjective intelligibility was observed in NH listeners but better subjective intelligibility than objective intelligibility was noted in HI listeners when tested in the unaided and aided modes.

Keywords

subjective intelligibility - objective intelligibility - objective-subjective intelligibility difference (OSID)

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 20 March 2023

Accepted: 04 August 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
18 August 2023

Article published online:
29 October 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Cienkowski KM, Speaks C. Subjective vs. objective intelligibility of sentences in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (05) 1205-1210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 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 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (01) 38-49
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ou H, Wetmore M. Development of a revised performance-perceptual test using quick speech in noise test material and its norms. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (03) 176-184
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Rivera IM. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (04) 904-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Saunders GH, Forsline A, Fausti SA. The performance-perceptual test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (02) 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Saunders GH, Forsline A. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (03) 229-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Saunders GH, Forsline A. Hearing-aid counseling: comparison of single-session informational counseling with single-session performance-perceptual counseling. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (10) 754-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nittrouer S, Boothroyd A. Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87 (06) 2705-2715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market. Hear Rev 2009; 16 (11) 12-31
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Lane H, Tranel B. The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Hear Res 1971; 14: 677-709
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kuk F, Seper E, Lau C, Korhonen P. A modified acceptable noise level (ANL-m) test to measure hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (08) 698-707
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kincaid J, Fishburne R, Rogers R, Chissom B. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. 1975 . Accessed August 29, 2023 at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/istlibrary/56
    Google Scholar
  • 16 WHO. World Report on Hearing. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. . License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 ANSI S3.5–1997. American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. 1997. . New York. Accessed at: https://blog.ansi.org/speech-intelligibility-index/
    Google Scholar
  • 19 European Broadcasting Union. . EBU-R128 - Loudness Normalization and Permitted Maximum Level of Audio Signals; 2020 . Accessed at: https://tech.ebu.ch/publications/r128/
  • 20 Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology 2001; 40 (03) 148-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Korhonen P, Kuk F, Slugocki C. Subjective and objective speech intelligibility during the Tracking of Noise Tolerance test. J Am Acad Audiol 2023
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Seper E, Kuk F, Korhonen P, Slugocki C. Tracking of noise tolerance to predict hearing aid satisfaction in loud noisy environments. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (04) 302-314
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Linares D, López-Moliner J. Quickpsy: an R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. R J 2016; 8 (01) 122-131
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bates D, Mächler M, Bolke B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67 (01) 1-48
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mueller HG, Ricketts TA, Bentler R. Pre-fitting testing using speech material. In: Modern Hearing Aids: Pre-Fitting Testing and Selection Considerations. 1st ed.. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2014: 123-193
    Google Scholar