ORIGINAL ARTICLE
DEVELOPMENT OF SENTENCES FOR A TAMIL SPEECH-IN-NOISE TEST: LISTS FOR CHILDREN, YOUNGER ADULTS, AND OLDER ADULTS
Arun Kumar 1, A
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Vinayaka Mission Medical College, Karaikal, India
 
 
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
 
 
Submission date: 2024-08-10
 
 
Final revision date: 2025-02-28
 
 
Acceptance date: 2025-03-17
 
 
Online publication date: 2025-03-31
 
 
Publication date: 2025-03-31
 
 
Corresponding author
Arun Kumar   

Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Keezhakasakudi Medu, Karaikal 609609, India
 
 
J Hear Sci 2025;15(1):16-24
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The present study aimed to develop and standardize sentences for speech-in-noise tests in the Tamil language for children, younger adults, and older adults.

Material and methods:
A set of 300 sentences in Tamil was taken from the Production of Language Training Materials in Major Indian Languages (Karanth et al., 2010) and recorded. These sentences were rated by five native Tamil-speaking speech-language pathologists based on naturalness, predictability, and identifiability. Sentences rated by at least 80% of the raters for high naturalness, low predictability, and high identifiability were selected, resulting in 147 sentences for further use. These sentences were mixed with speech-shaped noise at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), ranging from +5 to –10 dB in 2.5 dB steps. Speech perception in noise was assessed in 90 normal hearing participants (30 children, 30 younger adults, and 30 older adults). The SNR-50 values – representing the SNR at which 50% of the words were correctly identified – was evaluated.

Results:
Perceptual SNR-50 values were calculated for each list, based on the perceptual score obtained by each participant (separately for children, younger adults, and older adults). Statistical analysis determined that some lists had significantly different perceptual scores and were excluded. Seven lists were finalized for each age group, with mean SNR-50 values of –4.76 dB for children, –4.66 dB for younger adults, and –4.65 dB for older adults. Tests confirmed reliability and validity.

Conclusions:
The study found that speech identification scores decreased with poorer SNR levels, with significant differences in SNR-50 values across children, younger adults, and older adults. Separate, equivalent test lists were created for each age group. The test materials showed high test–retest reliability and internal validity, making it possible to distinguish between individuals with normal hearing and those with hearing loss.
FUNDING
This research and article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES (22)
1.
Hervais-Adelman AG, Carlyon RP, Johnsrude IS, Davis MH. Brain regions recruited for the effortful comprehension of noise-vocoded words. Lang Cogn Neurosci, 2012; 27(7): 1145–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909....
 
2.
Flanagan JL. Perception of Speech and Speech-Like Sounds. In: Speech Analysis Synthesis and Perception, Vol. 3. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer; 1965. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
 
3.
Kraus N. Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates. J Cogn Neurosci, 2011; 23(9): 2268–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2....
 
4.
Lee JY. Aging and speech understanding. J Audiol Otol, 2015; 19(1): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.20....
 
5.
Bray V, Nilsson M. What digital hearing aids can do: another perspective. Hear J, 2002; 55(4): 60–61, 64. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.....
 
6.
Chen J, Zhang H, Plyler PN, Cao W, Chen J. Development and evaluation of the Mandarin speech signal content on the acceptable noise level test in listeners with normal hearing in mainland China. Int J Audiol, 2011; 50(6): 354–60. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
 
7.
Shayanmehr S, Tahaei AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie S, Modarresi Y. Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Aud Vestib Res, 2015; 24(4): 234–44.
 
8.
Geetha C, Kumar KS S, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardization of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci, 2014; 4(1): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.17430/89026....
 
9.
Hota P, Dutta P, Chatterjee I. Psychometric validation of speech perception in noise test material in Odia (Master’s Dissertation). West Bengal University of Health Science, Kolkata, India; 2014.
 
10.
Ghosh V, Devananda D, Harisanker SB, Kumar H. Speech perception in noise in Malayalam-Speaking young adults with normal hearing. J Hear Sci, 2024; 14(2): 33–8. https://doi.org/10.17430/Jhs/1....
 
11.
Wang X, Zhang Y, Wu X, Zhang Q. Development of Mandarin speech perception in noise test. Int J Audiol, 2007; 46(11): 711–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
 
12.
Karanth P, Manjula R, Geetha YV, Prema KS. With a Little Bit of Help: An early language learning kit. Hindi, Malayalam, Marathi, Tamil, and Telugu. Bangalore: Books for Change; 2010.
 
13.
Vagias WM. Likert-type Scale Response Anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson, USA: Clemson University; 2006.
 
14.
Quené H, van Delft LE. Speech-shaped noise using Praat. 2010.
 
15.
McCloy D, Daniel M. Mix noise script for Praat software. 2013.
 
16.
Muthuselvi T, Yathiraj A. Utility of the screening checklist for auditory processing (SCAP) in detecting (C)APD in children. Student Research at AIISH Mysore, 2009; 7: 159–75.
 
17.
Vaidyanath R, Yathiraj A. Screening checklist for auditory processing in adults (SCAP-A): Development and preliminary findings. J Hear Sci, 2014; 4(1): 27–37. https://doi.org/10.17430/89078....
 
18.
Smits C, Kramer SE, Houtgast T. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(5): 538–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud....
 
19.
Zaar J, Dau T. Sources of variability in consonant perception of normal-hearing listeners in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 2015; 138(3): 1253–67. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4928....
 
20.
Bent T, Bradlow AR. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 114(3): 1600–10. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603....
 
21.
Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1995; 97(1): 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4122....
 
22.
Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott S K. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cognitive Proc, 2012; 27(7–8): 953–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909....
 
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top