ORIGINAL ARTICLE
DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDIZATION OF AUDITORY LOW-FREQUENCY WORD LISTS IN HINDI
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore, India
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Prashanth Prabhu   

Prashanth Prabhu, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Naimisham Campus, Mysore, Karnataka, India 570006, e-mail: prashanth.audio@gmail.com
Publication date: 2020-04-14
 
J Hear Sci 2016;6(4):39–49
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Conventionally, it is believed that high-frequency auditory information is important for speech understanding. This is only partly true, as recent studies have demonstrated the importance of low-frequency information. This research was taken up to develop, standardize, and validate auditory low-frequency word lists in Hindi, an Indian language.

Material and Methods:
The first phase of the study involved collection of bisyllabic words followed by verification by a native linguist. Words were then short-listed based on familiarity ratings given by 10 adult native speakers; those words were recorded and the best recorded words selected through subjective and objective analysis. Then, using Fast Fourier Transform and k-means clustering, words with more energy below 1.5 kHz were isolated. Finally, equally difficult 10 word lists were generated by obtaining psychometric function curves. Finally, lists were administered on 40 adult normal hearing particip

Results:
Results showed a similar trend of increase in speech identification scores with increase in SL across all lists except list 4. During the final phase, developed lists were validated on 10 simulated low-frequency cochlear hearing loss participants. Hearing loss was simulated using Matlab and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) software. Results of validation revealed that auditory low-frequency word lists were sensitive enough to tap the speech understanding difficulty in the simulated condition.

Conclusions:
The developed word lists can be used clinically to assess communication ability in individuals with rising hearing loss. The word lists also have the potential to assess the performance after amplification provided to individuals with rising hearing loss.

 
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Margolis RH, Saly GL. Asymmetric hearing loss: definition, validation, and prevalence. Otol Neurotol, 2008; 29(4): 422–31.
 
2.
Hull FM, Mielke PW, Timmons RJ, Willeford JA. The national speech and hearing survey: Preliminary results. ASHA, 1971; 13(9): 501–9.
 
3.
Rabinowitz PM, Slade MD, Galusha D, Dixon-Ernst C, Cullen MR. Trends in the prevalence of hearing loss among young adults entering an industrial workforce 1985 to 2004. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(4): 369–75.
 
4.
Gates GA, Couropmitree NN, Myers RH. Genetic associations in age-related hearing thresholds. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1999; 125(6): 654–59.
 
5.
Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE, Moeller MP. The importance of high-frequency audibility in the speech and language development of children with hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2004; 130(5): 556–62.
 
6.
Gardner HJ. Application of a high-frequency consonant discrimination word list in hearing-aid evaluation. J Speech Hear Disord, 1971; 36(3): 354–55.
 
7.
Noble W, Sinclair S, Byrne D. Improvement in aided sound localization with open earmolds: observations in people with high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 1998; 9(1): 25–34.
 
8.
Pascoe DP. Frequency responses of hearing aids and their effects on the speech perception of hearing-impaired subjects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1975; 84(5 pt 2 Suppl 23): 1–40.
 
9.
Jin S, Nelson P. Interrupted speech perception: the effects of hearing sensitivity and frequency resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 2010; 128(2): 881–89.
 
10.
Gantz BJ, Turner C, Gfeller KE, Lowder MW. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: Advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Laryngoscope, 2005;115(5): 796–802.
 
11.
Turner C, Brus S. Providing low-and mid-frequency speech information to listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 109(6): 2999–3006.
 
12.
Avilala VKY, Prabhu P, Barman A. The effect of filtered speech on speech identification scores of you normal hearing adults. J All India Inst Speech Hear. 2010; 29(1): 115–19.
 
13.
Bornstein SP, Wilson RH, Cambron NK. Low- and high-pass filtered Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 for monaural and binaural evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol, 1994; 5(4): 259–64.
 
14.
Prabhu P, Avilala V, Barman A. Speech perception abilities for spectrally modified signals in individuals with auditory dyssynchrony. Int J Audiol, 2011; 50(5): 349–52.
 
15.
De NS. Hindi PB list for speech audiometry and discrimination test. Ind J Otolaryngol, 1973; 25(2): 64–75.
 
16.
Ramachandra P. High Frequency Speech Identification Test for Hindi and Urdu speakers. University of Bengaluru; 2001.
 
17.
Kavitha EM. High Frequency Kannada Speech Identification Test (HF-KST). University of Mysore; 2002.
 
18.
Sudipta KB. High Frequency-English Speech Identification Test (HF-ESIT). University of Mysore; 2006.
 
19.
Sinthiya KM. High Frequency Speech Identification Test in Tamil. University of Mysore; 2009.
 
20.
Ratnakar YV. High Frequency Speech Identification Test in Telugu. University of Mysore; 2010.
 
21.
Lloyd LL, Kaplan H. Audiometric Interpretation. Baltimore MD: University Park Press; 1978.
 
22.
Moore BC, Glasberg BR. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993 Oct;94(4): 2050–62.
 
23.
Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord, 1952; 17(3): 321–37.
 
24.
Jain C, Narne VK, Singh NK, Kumar P, Mekhala M. The development of Hindi Sentence Test for speech recognition in noise. Int J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol, 2014; 2(2): 86–94.
 
25.
Ramakrishna BS, Nair KK, Chiplunkar VN, Atal BS, Ramachandran V, Subramanian R. Some aspect of the relative efficiencies of Indian languages. Banglaore: Indian Institute of Science; 1992.
 
26.
Gold S, Lubinsky R, Shahar A. Speech discrimination scores at low sensation levels as a possible index of malingering. J Aud Res, 1981; 21(2): 137–41.
 
27.
Roeser RJ, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. Audiology Diagnosis. New York: Thieme; 2011.
 
28.
Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol, 2000; 11(9): 489–93.