ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EFFECT OF SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS ON THE TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH TEST
 
More details
Hide details
1
Clinica Barajas, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
2
Fundacion Canaria Dr. Barajas para la Prevencion e Investigacion de la Sordera, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
3
Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
4
Centro de Logopedia y Audiologia Isabel Olleta, Logroño, Spain
5
CREDA Jordi Perello, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Franz Zenker Castro   

Franz Zenker Castro, Clinica Barajas, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, e-mail: zenker@clinicabarajas.com
Publication date: 2020-04-20
 
J Hear Sci 2012;2(1):25–29
 
ABSTRACT
Background:
The comprehension of spoken language is based on the analysis of complex acoustic signals by the central auditory system. Cognitive declines and deficits in speech understanding are seen in aged individuals and also in the hearing impaired. The Time-Compressed Speech Test is a low redundancy central auditory processing test that evaluates the closure ability to recognise degraded acoustic speech, words, or sentences.

Material and Methods:
In this work, we evaluated the difficulties in understanding compressed speech. Volunteer patients, both with normal hearing and with hearing loss, took part in the experiments. Also a group of hearing aid users were included. The stimuli consisted of speech words that were either unmodified in duration or time-compressed and presented at the most comfortable level.

Results:
An inverse relationship was seen between the compression ratio and the capacity to identify correctly the words presented. Compressed words were worse perceived by hearing-aid users than by patients with flat audiograms and with a high-frequency hearing loss.

Conclusions:
In patients with a flat audiogram, a deficit in the mechanism of temporal resolution exists. Furthermore, hearing aids facilitate the audibility of sound even though they do not act efficiently with speech at high ratios of presentation.

 
REFERENCES (14)
1.
ASHA: (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report], 2005; 1–27.
 
2.
ASHA: Central Auditory Processing: Current Status of Research and Implications for Clinical Practice. Am J Audiol, 1995; 5: 41–54.
 
3.
Dempsey C: Selecting tests of auditory function in children. In: Katz J (ed.), Central Auditory Processing Disorders: Problems of speech, language, and learning. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1983; 203–21.
 
4.
Beasley D, Maki J: Time and frequency-altered speech. In: Lass, L. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Experimental Phonetics. New York: Academic Press, 1976; 419–58.
 
5.
Letowski T, Poch N: Understanding of time-compressed speech by older adults: effect of discard interval. J Am Acad Audiol, 1995; 6(6): 433–39.
 
6.
Calearo C, Lazzaroni A: Speech intelligibility in relation to the speed of the message. Laryngoscope, 1957; 67: 410–19.
 
7.
Fairbanks G, Kodman F: Word intellibility as a function of time compression. J Acoust Soc Am, 1957; 29: 636–41.
 
8.
Foulke E, Sticht T: The intelligibility and comprehension of time-compressed speech. In: Foulke E, (ed.) Proceedings of the Louisville Conference on Time-Compressed Speech. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville, 1967; 21–28.
 
9.
Kurdziel SA, Noffsinger D, Olsen W: Performance by cortical lesion patients on 40% and 60% time-compressed materials, J Am Audiol Soc, 1976; 2: 3–7.
 
10.
Rintelmann WF, Lynn GE: Speech stimuli for assessment of central auditory disorders. In: DF Konkle, WF Rintelmann (eds.), Principles of speech audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1983; 231–83.
 
11.
Mueller HG, Beck WG, Sedge RK: Comparison of the efficiency of cortical level speech test. Semin Hear Res, 1987; 1: 186–95.
 
12.
Cardenas R, Marrero V: Cuaderno de logoaudiometria (in Spanish) (Notebook on Speech Audiometry). Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, Madrid, 1994.
 
13.
Studebaker GA: A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 1985; 28: 455–62.
 
14.
Wilson RH, Peece JP, Salamon DL et al: Effects of time compression plus reverberation on the intelligibility of Northwestern University auditory test no. 6. J Am Acad Audiol, 1994; 5: 269–77.