PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(05): 315-323
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727274
Research Article

Speech Recognition in Noise Using Binaural Diotic and Antiphasic Digits-in-Noise in Children: Maturation and Self-Test Validity

Jenique Wolmarans
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
,
Karina C. De Sousa
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
,
Caitlin Frisby
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
,
Faheema Mahomed-Asmail
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
,
Cas Smits
2   Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear and Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
David R. Moore
3   Communication Sciences Research Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
4   Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
,
De Wet Swanepoel
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
5   Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
› Institutsangaben Funding This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (US), under Grant [5R21DC016241–02], awarded to David R. Moore and De Wet Swanepoel.
The sixth author, David Moore, receives support from the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Digits-in-noise (DIN) tests have become popular for hearing screening over the past 15 years. Several recent studies have highlighted the potential utility of DIN as a school-aged hearing test. However, age may influence test performance in children due to maturation. In addition, a new antiphasic stimulus paradigm has been introduced, allowing binaural intelligibility level difference (BILD) to be measured by using a combination of conventional diotic and antiphasic DIN.

Purpose This study determined age-specific normative data for diotic and antiphasic DIN, and a derived measure, BILD, in children. A secondary aim evaluated the validity of DIN as a smartphone self-test in a subgroup of young children.

Research Design A cross-sectional, quantitative design was used. Participants with confirmed normal audiometric hearing were tested with a diotic and antiphasic DIN. During the test, arrangements of three spoken digits were presented in noise via headphones at varying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Researchers entered each three-digit spoken sequence repeated by the participant on a smartphone keypad.

Study Sample Overall, 621 (428 male and 193 female) normal hearing children (bilateral pure tone threshold of ≤ 20 dB hearing level at 1, 2, and 4 kHz) ranging between the ages of 6 and 13 years were recruited. A subgroup of 7-year-olds (n = 30), complying with the same selection criteria, was selected to determine the validity of self-testing.

Data Collection and Analysis DIN testing was completed via headphones coupled to a smartphone. Diotic and antiphasic DIN speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were analyzed and compared for each age group. BILD was calculated through subtraction of antiphasic from diotic SRTs. Multiple linear regressions were run to determine the effect of age on SRT and BILD. In addition, piecewise linear regressions were fit across different age groups. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine differences between self- and facilitated tests.

Results Age was a significant predictor, of both diotic and antiphasic DIN SRTs (p < 0.05). SRTs improved by 0.15 dB and 0.35 dB SNR per year for diotic and antiphasic SRTs, respectively. However, age effects were only significant up to 10 and 12 years for antiphasic and diotic SRTs, respectively. Age significantly (p < 0.001) predicted BILD, which increased by 0.18 dB per year. A small SRT advantage for facilitated over self-testing was seen but was not significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusions Increasing age was significantly associated with improved SRT and BILD using diotic and antiphasic DINs. DIN could be used as a smartphone self-test in young children from 7 years of age with appropriate quality control measures to avoid potential false positives.

Keywords

age - children - diotic - antiphasic - speech recognition threshold - binaural intelligibility level difference


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. Dezember 2019

Angenommen: 30. November 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. August 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organisation. Deafness and hearing loss factsheet. 2019 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss . Accessed January 12, 2021
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear 1998; 19 (05) 339-354
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lieu JE. Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (05) 524-530
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Stevenson J, Kreppner J, Pimperton H, Worsfold S, Kennedy C. Emotional and behavioural difficulties in children and adolescents with hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2015; 24 (05) 477-496
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Theunissen SC, Rieffe C, Kouwenberg M. et al. Behavioral problems in school-aged hearing-impaired children: the influence of sociodemographic, linguistic, and medical factors. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2014; 23 (04) 187-196
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Winiger AM, Alexander JM, Diefendorf AO. Minimal hearing loss: from a failure-based approach to evidence-based practice. Am J Audiol 2016; 25 (03) 232-245
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Olusanya BO. Neonatal hearing screening and intervention in resource-limited settings: an overview. Arch Dis Child 2012; 97 (07) 654-659
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Swanepoel W. Early detection of infant hearing loss in South Africa. S Afr Med J 2009; 99 (03) 158-159
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Russ SA, Hanna D, DesGeorges J, Forsman I. Improving follow-up to newborn hearing screening: a learning-collaborative experience. Pediatrics 2010; 126 (Suppl. 01) S59-S69
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Shulman S, Besculides M, Saltzman A, Ireys H, White KR, Forsman I. Evaluation of the universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program. Pediatrics 2010; 126 (Suppl. 01) S19-S27
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Barreira-Nielsen C, Fitzpatrick E, Hashem S, Whittingham J, Barrowman N, Aglipay M. Progressive hearing loss in early childhood. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (05) e311-e321
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Twardella D, Raab U, Perez-Alvarez C, Steffens T, Bolte G, Fromme H. Usage of personal music players in adolescents and its association with noise-induced hearing loss: a cross-sectional analysis of Ohrkan cohort study data. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (01) 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Vogel I, Brug J, Van der Ploeg CP, Raat H. Adolescents risky MP3-player listening and its psychosocial correlates. Health Educ Res 2011; 26 (02) 254-264
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Cone BK, Wake M, Tobin S, Poulakis Z, Rickards FW. Slight-mild sensorineural hearing loss in children: audiometric, clinical, and risk factor profiles. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (02) 202-212
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Van Kerschaver E, Boudewyns AN, Declau F, Van de Heyning PH, Wuyts FL. Socio-demographic determinants of hearing impairment studied in 103,835 term babies. Eur J Public Health 2013; 23 (01) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 American Academy of Audiology (AAA). 2011 American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Childhood Hearing Screening. http://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/AAA-Childhood-Hearing-Screening-Guidelines.pdf
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Swanepoel D, De Sousa KC, Smits C, Moore D. Mobile apps to screen for hearing loss: opportunities and challenges. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97 (10) 717-718
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (01) 15-28
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC, Frachet B, Wouters J. The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (05) 378-387
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Potgieter JM, Swanepoel W, Myburgh HC, Smits C. The South African English smartphone digits-in-noise hearing test: effect of age, hearing loss and speaking. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (04) 656-663
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Potgieter JM, Swanepoel W, Myburgh HC, Hopper TC, Smits C. Development and validation of a smartphone-based digits-in-noise hearing test in South African English. Int J Audiol 2015; 55 (07) 405-411
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 De Sousa KC, Swanepoel W, Moore DR, Myburgh HC, Smits C. Improving sensitivity of the digits-in-noise test using antiphasic stimuli. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (02) 442-450
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Moore DR, Zobay O, Mackinnon RC, Whitmer WM, Akeroyd MA. Lifetime leisure music exposure associated with increased frequency of tinnitus. Hear Res 2017; 347: 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 De Sousa KC, Swanepoel W, Moore DR, Smits C. A smartphone national hearing test: performance and characteristics of users. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (3S) 448-454
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Denys S, Hofmann M, Luts H. et al. School-age hearing screening based on speech-in-noise perception using the digit triplet test. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1104-1115
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Koopmans WJA, Goverts ST, Smits C. Speech recognition abilities in normal-hearing children 4 to 12 years of age in stationary and interrupted noise. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1091-1103
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Neher T. Characterizing the binaural contribution to speech-in-noise reception in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141 (02) EL159-EL163
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Schoof T, Rosen S. The role of auditory and cognitive factors in understanding speech in noise by normal-hearing older listeners. Front Aging Neurosci 2014; 6: 307
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Buss E, Hodge SE, Calandruccio L, Leibold LJ, Grose JH. Masked sentence recognition in children, young adults, and older adults: age-dependent effects of semantic context and masker type. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1117-1126
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Buss E, Leibold LJ, Hall III JW. Effect of response context and masker type on word recognition in school-age children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (02) 968-977
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Watson CS, Kidd GR, Miller JD, Smits C, Humes LE. Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: current use in seven countries and development of a US version. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 757-767
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 ASHA. School-age hearing screening. 2019 https://www.asha.org/advocacy/state/school-age-hearing-screening/ . Accessed January 12, 2021
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Butler I. Identification and management of childhood hearing loss. CME: Your SA Journal of CPD 2012; 30 (09) 314-317
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Smits C, Watson CS, Kidd GR, Moore DR, Goverts ST. A comparison between the Dutch and American-English digits-in-noise (DIN) tests in normal-hearing listeners. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (06) 358-365
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Hirsh IJ. Binaural summation and interaural inhibition as a function of the level of masking noise. Am J Psychol 1948; 61 (02) 205-213
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Licklider JCR. The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1948; 20 (02) 150-159
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Gilbert HJ, Shackleton TM, Krumbholz K, Palmer AR. The neural substrate for binaural masking level differences in the auditory cortex. J Neurosci 2015; 35 (01) 209-220
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Jerger J, Brown D, Smith S. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch Otolaryngol 1984; 110 (05) 290-296
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Palmer AR, Jiang D, McAlpine D. Neural responses in the inferior colliculus to binaural masking level differences created by inverting the noise in one ear. J Neurophysiol 2000; 84 (02) 844-852
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Palmer AR, Jiang D, McAlpine D. Desynchronizing responses to correlated noise: a mechanism for binaural masking level differences at the inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 1999; 81 (02) 722-734
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Yuen KC, Yuan M. Development of spatial release from masking in Mandarin-speaking children with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57 (05) 2005-2023
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Roush J, Tait CA. Binaural fusion, masking level differences, and auditory brain stem responses in children with language-learning disabilities. Ear Hear 1984; 5 (01) 37-41
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Sweetow RW, Reddell RC. The use of masking level differences in the identification of children with perceptual problems. J Am Aud Soc 1978; 4 (02) 52-56
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Nozza R. The binaural masking level difference in infants and adults: developmental change in binaural hearing. Infant Behav Dev 1987; 10: 105-110
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Ching TY, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H, Carter L. Spatial release from masking in normal-hearing children and children who use hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129 (01) 368-375
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Moore DR, Whiston H, Lough M. et al. FreeHear: a new sound-field speech-in-babble hearing assessment tool. Trends Hear 2019; 23: 2331216519872378
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Murphy J, Summerfield AQ, O'Donoghue GM, Moore DR. Spatial hearing of normally hearing and cochlear implanted children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75 (04) 489-494
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Cameron S, Brown D, Keith R, Martin J, Watson C, Dillon H. Development of the North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (NA LiSN-S): sentence equivalence, normative data, and test-retest reliability studies. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (02) 128-146
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Van Deun L, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. Spatial speech perception benefits in young children with normal hearing and cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (05) 702-713
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Jerger J, Jerger S. Measurement of hearing in adults. Otolaryngology 1980; 2: 1225-1250
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Smits C, Theo Goverts S, Festen JM. The digits-in-noise test: assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133 (03) 1693-1706
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Buss E, Hall III JW, Grose JH. Development and the role of internal noise in detection and discrimination thresholds with narrow band stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120 (5 Pt 1): 2777-2788
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Dev MB. Developmental effects in the masking-level difference. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (01) 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Holder JT, Sheffield SW, Gifford RH. Speech understanding in children with normal hearing: sound field normative data for BabyBio, BKB-SIN, and QuickSIN. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (02) e50-e55
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 55 Stuart A. Reception thresholds for sentences in quiet, continuous noise, and interrupted noise in school-age children. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (02) 135-146 , quiz 191–192
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Moore DR, Cowan JA, Riley A, Edmondson-Jones AM, Ferguson MA. Development of auditory processing in 6- to 11-yr-old children. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (03) 269-285
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 57 Eggermont JJ, Ponton CW. Auditory-evoked potential studies of cortical maturation in normal hearing and implanted children: correlations with changes in structure and speech perception. Acta Otolaryngol 2003; 123 (02) 249-252
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 58 McCreery RW, Miller MK, Buss E, Leibold LJ. Cognitive and linguistic contributions to masked speech recognition in children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (10) 3525-3538
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 59 Elliott LL, Connors S, Kille E, Levin S, Ball K, Katz D. Children's understanding of monosyllabic nouns in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66 (01) 12-21
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 60 Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Fourth UK Edition Manual. Oxford, UK: Pearson Assessment; 2004
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 61 Kaandorp MW, De Groot AM, Festen JM, Smits C, Goverts ST. The influence of lexical-access ability and vocabulary knowledge on measures of speech recognition in noise. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (03) 157-167
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 62 Moore DR, Edmondson-Jones M, Dawes P. et al. Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40-69 years of age. PLoS One 2014; 9 (09) e107720
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 63 Talarico M, Abdilla G, Aliferis M. et al. Effect of age and cognition on childhood speech in noise perception abilities. Audiol Neurotol 2007; 12 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 64 Kabali HK, Irigoyen MM, Nunez-Davis R. et al. Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (06) 1044-1050
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 65 Rideout V, Katz VS. Opportunity for All? Technology and Learning in Lower-Income Families. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop; 2016: 10023
    Suche in Google Scholar