JAAA CEU Program

The questions on this page refer to Kuk et al, “Measuring Objective and Subjective Intelligibility Using Speech Materials from the Tracking of Noise Tolerance Test,” pages 159–169.

Learner Outcomes

Readers of this article should be able to:

• Understand that subjective speech intelligibility could be diff erent from objective speech intelligibility depending on the speech materials used and the hearing status of the listeners.

• Estimate if a listener over-, under-, or accurately estimates their hearing ability.

CEU Questions

1. Why is it important to measure both objective and subjective speech intelligibilities?

   • It is not important to measure both. It is only important to measure objective intelligibility.

   • The measurement may help understand the listeners' personality traits.

   • The measurement may provide insights into the listeners and facilitate rehabilitation counseling.

2. What types of speech materials would likely yield the biggest gap (if it occurs) between subjective and objective speech intelligibility testing?

   • Non-thematic sentence materials

   • Thematic sentence materials

   • Nonsense syllables

3. How was the objective-subjective intelligibility diff erence (OSID) test administered?

   • Objective test followed by subjective test using a diff erent list

   • Subjective test followed by objective test using a diff erent list

   • Subjective test followed by objective test using the same list

4. Which part of the performance-intensity (P-I) function is the most sensitive to the objective-subjective speech intelligibility diff erence?

   • The slope of the function

   • The ceiling of the function

   • All levels are equally sensitive.

5. What does a positive OSID mean?

   • Objective speech intelligibility is better than subjective speech intelligibility.

   • Subjective speech intelligibility is better than objective speech intelligibility.

   • Subjective speech intelligibility is the same as objective speech intelligibility.

6. What were the general observations between objective and subjective speech intelligibilities?

   • There was not a significant diff erence in OSID in listeners without hearing impairment but a significant OSID diff erence in listeners with hearing impairment in the unaided and aided modes.

   • There was not a significant diff erence in OSID in listeners without hearing impairment or listeners with hearing impairment in both the aided and unaided modes.

   • There was not a significant diff erence in OSID in listeners without hearing impairment but a significant OSID diff erence in listeners with hearing impairment in the unaided mode and insignificant diff erence in the aided mode.

7. What was proposed by the authors as a way to identify over-, under-, and accurate estimators of hearing ability?

   • Use the Rule of 3.

   • Use the OSID cumulative distribution of listeners without hearing impairment and identify the top 10% as over-estimators and bottom 10% as under-estimators.

   • Use the OSID cumulative distribution of listeners without hearing impairment and identify the top 10% as under-estimators and bottom 10% as over-estimators.

8. What was observed in the study regarding the eff ect of amplification on the magnitude of the OSID?

   • The use of amplification widened the gap between objective and subjective speech intelligibility.

   • The use of amplification narrowed the gap between objective and subjective speech intelligibility.

   • The use of amplification did not have any eff ect on the gap between objective and subjective speech intelligibility in listeners with hearing impairment.

9. To best serve listeners with hearing impairment, it is recommended that audiologists

   • Measure objective speech intelligibility only.

   • Measure subjective speech intelligibility only.

   • Measure both subjective and objective speech intelligibility.

10. What could be the challenge(s) posed to audiologists based on the observations from this study?

    • Listeners with hearing impairment see less difficulty than they experience and perceive less benefit from amplification than they receive.

    • Listeners with hearing impairment see more difficulty than they experience and perceive less benefit from amplification than they receive.

    • Listeners with hearing impairment see no benefit from amplification.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. November 2024