Current Issue
Online First
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
MONOSYLLABIC SPEECH PERCEPTION UNDER MULTI-TALKER BABBLE FOR NORMAL ADULTS: A PHONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
1
Department of Audiology, School of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology,
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Pune, India
2
School of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Bharati Vidyapeeth
(Deemed to be University), Pune, India
These authors had equal contribution to this work
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: 2026-02-12
Final revision date: 2026-06-20
Acceptance date: 2026-06-22
Online publication date: 2026-08-12
Publication date: 2026-08-12
Corresponding author
Anuj Kumar Neupane
Department of Audiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) School of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Dhankawadi, 411043, Pune, India
Department of Audiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) School of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Dhankawadi, 411043, Pune, India
J Hear Sci 2026;16(2):35-47
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Speech perception in noisy environments is a crucial skill that often declines with age and varies across languages. Considering the need for a language-specific assessment tool, the present study aimed to develop the Speech-in-Noise Test–Hindi (SiNT-H) and to evaluate speech recognition performance and phonetic error patterns between younger and middle-aged adults at varying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels.
Material and methods:
The study included 27 young and 27 middle-aged native Hindi speakers with hearing thresholds ≤25 dB HL. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I involved the development of the SiNT-H, its administration to young adults, analysis of performance across SNRs, and assessment of test–retest reliability. Phase II compared SiNT-H scores between young and middle-aged adults at different SNR levels using four-talker babble noise. Additionally, a detailed phonetic error analysis was carried out across SNR conditions.
Results:
The SiNT-H demonstrated no significant ear-wise or list-wise differences. Females outperformed males, with younger females showing better performance than middle-aged females, indicating a gender–age interaction. Performance significantly declined with decreasing SNRs, confirming the test’s sensitivity to noise. Phonetic analysis revealed increased errors at lower SNRs, particularly in voicing, manner, place, and aspiration features. At 0 dB SNR, voicing, manner, and aspiration errors were more prevalent among middle-aged adults, reflecting age-related processing declines.
Conclusions:
The findings highlight the importance of incorporating language-specific acoustic-phonetic features in speech-in-noise assessment and underscore the influence of age on speech perception in noisy environments. The SiNT-H appears to be a sensitive tool for evaluating age-related changes in speech recognition in noise among Hindi speakers.
Speech perception in noisy environments is a crucial skill that often declines with age and varies across languages. Considering the need for a language-specific assessment tool, the present study aimed to develop the Speech-in-Noise Test–Hindi (SiNT-H) and to evaluate speech recognition performance and phonetic error patterns between younger and middle-aged adults at varying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels.
Material and methods:
The study included 27 young and 27 middle-aged native Hindi speakers with hearing thresholds ≤25 dB HL. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I involved the development of the SiNT-H, its administration to young adults, analysis of performance across SNRs, and assessment of test–retest reliability. Phase II compared SiNT-H scores between young and middle-aged adults at different SNR levels using four-talker babble noise. Additionally, a detailed phonetic error analysis was carried out across SNR conditions.
Results:
The SiNT-H demonstrated no significant ear-wise or list-wise differences. Females outperformed males, with younger females showing better performance than middle-aged females, indicating a gender–age interaction. Performance significantly declined with decreasing SNRs, confirming the test’s sensitivity to noise. Phonetic analysis revealed increased errors at lower SNRs, particularly in voicing, manner, place, and aspiration features. At 0 dB SNR, voicing, manner, and aspiration errors were more prevalent among middle-aged adults, reflecting age-related processing declines.
Conclusions:
The findings highlight the importance of incorporating language-specific acoustic-phonetic features in speech-in-noise assessment and underscore the influence of age on speech perception in noisy environments. The SiNT-H appears to be a sensitive tool for evaluating age-related changes in speech recognition in noise among Hindi speakers.
FUNDING
This research and article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.
REFERENCES (61)
1.
Middelweerd MJ, Festen JM, Plomp R. Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram. Int J Audiol, 1990; 29(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/002060....
2.
Lotto AJ, Holt LL. Speech perception: the view from the auditory system. In: Neurobiology of Language. Hickok G, Small SL, Editors. Elsevier eBooks; 2015, pp. 185–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0....
3.
Era P, Jokela J, Qvarnberg Y, Heikkinen E. Pure-tone thresholds, speech understanding, and their correlates in samples of men of different ages. Int J Audiol, 1986; 25(6): 338–52. https://doi.org/10.3109/002060....
4.
Beattie RC, Barr T, Roup C. Normal and hearing-impaired word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet and noise. Br J Audiol, 1997; 31(3): 153–64. https://doi.org/10.3109/030053....
5.
Tremblay P, Brisson V, Deschamps I. Brain aging and speech perception: effects of background noise and talker variability. NeuroImage, 2020; 227: 117675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neur....
6.
Dillard LK, Walsh MC, Merten N, Cruickshanks KJ, Schultz A. Prevalence of self-reported hearing loss and associated risk factors: findings from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2022; 65(5): 2016–28. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_j....
7.
Palva T. Studies of hearing for pure tones and speech in noise. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1955; 45(3): 231–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/000164....
8.
Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1986; 29(2): 146–54. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2....
9.
Beattie RC. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord, 1989; 54(1): 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5....
10.
Gordon-Salant S. Hearing loss and aging: new research findings and clinical implications. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2005; 42(4s): 9. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2....
11.
Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol, 1951; 41(5): 329–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00624....
12.
Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1984; 76(1): 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3910....
13.
Lutman ME, Brown EJ, Coles RRA. Self-reported disability and handicap in the population in relation to pure-tone threshold, age, sex and type of hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 1987; 21(1): 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3109/030053....
14.
Wilson RH, Strouse A. Word recognition in multitalker babble. American Speech Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Convention. San Francisco, CA; 1999.
15.
Carhart R, Tillman TW, Greetis ES. Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 1969; 45(3): 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911....
16.
Davis H, Hudgins CV, Marquis RJ, Nichols RH, Peterson GE, Ross DA, Stevens SS. The selection of hearing aids Part II. Laryngoscope, 1946; 56(4): 135–63.
17.
Killion MC, Niquette PA. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient’s SNR loss? Hear J, 2000; 53(3): 46–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/000255....
18.
Singh S, Black JW. Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. J Acoust Soc Am, 1966; 39: 372–87.
20.
Mallikarjun B. Metamorphosis of ‘Hindi’ in Modern India: a study of Census of India. Language in India, 2019; 19(8).
21.
Elliott LL. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979; 66(3): 651–53. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3836....
22.
Schneider BA, Li L, Daneman M. How competing speech interferes with speech comprehension in everyday listening situations. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18(7): 559–72. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.1....
23.
Weber A, Smits R. Consonant and vowel confusion patterns by American English listeners. 2003. https://hdl.handle.net/11858/0....
24.
Moreno-Torres I, Otero P, Luna-Ramírez S, Heinze EG. Analysis of Spanish consonant recognition in 8-talker babble. J Acoust Soc Am, 2017; 141(5): 3079–90. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4982....
25.
Shipra, Chandra M. Hindi vowel classification using QCN-PNCC features. Indian J Sci Technol, 2016; 9(38). https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/....
26.
Wang MD, Bilger RC. Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. J Acoust Soc Am, 1973; 54(5): 1248–66. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1914....
27.
Cutler A, Weber A, Smits R, Cooper N. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116(6): 3668–78. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1810....
28.
Vaidyanath R, Yathiraj A. Influence of noise on the equivalence of word-lists in a phonemically balanced word test: comparison in young and older adults. Hear Bal Commun, 2019; 17(1): 42–50.
29.
De NS. Hindi PB list for speech audiometry and discrimination test. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1973; 25(2): 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf0299....
30.
Chinnaraj G, Neelamegarajan D, Ravirose U. Development, standardization, and validation of bisyllabic phonemically balanced Tamil word test in quiet and noise. J Hear Sci, 2022; 11(4): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.17430/jhs.2....
31.
Zwicker E. Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands (Frequenzgruppen). J Acoust Soc Am, 1961; 33(2): 248. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908...
32.
Gundmi A, Himaja P, Dhamani A. Effectiveness of multitalker babble over speech noise and its implications: a comparative study. Indian J Otol, 2018; 24(2): 88. https://doi.org/10.4103/indian....
33.
Masalski M. The hearing test app for Android devices: distinctive features of pure-tone audiometry performed on mobile devices. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 2024: 151–63.
34.
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....
35.
Wilson RH, McArdle R. Intra- and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18(10): 813–25. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.1....
36.
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. https://doi.org/10.12970/2311-....
37.
Lee JY, Lee JT, Heo HJ, Choi C, Choi SH, Lee K. Speech recognition in real-life background noise by young and middle-aged adults with normal hearing. J Audiol Otol, 2015; 19(1): 39–44. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.20....
38.
Emami SF, Gohari N, Ramezani H, Borzouei M. Hearing performance in the follicular-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Int J Otolaryngol, 2018; 2018: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7....
39.
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....
40.
Simpson SA, Cooke M. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 2005; 118(5): 2775–8. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2062....
41.
Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 1977; 61(5): 1337–51. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3814....
42.
Braza MD, Porter HL, Buss E, Calandruccio L, McCreery RW, Leibold LJ. Effects of word familiarity and receptive vocabulary size on speech-in-noise recognition among young adults with normal hearing. PLoS ONE, 2022; 17(3): e0264581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journa....
43.
Puckett BJ, Ryherd EE, Bent T, Baese-Berk MM, Manley N. Medically related speech: impacts of age, familiarity, and noise on word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 2023; 153(Suppl 3): A167. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.001....
44.
Gu F, Kwong T, Wong L. Absence of ear advantage for segmental and tonal perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 2017; 141(Suppl 5): 4032. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4989....
45.
Spyridakou C, Rosen S, Dritsakis G, Bamiou D. Adult normative data for the speech in babble (SiB) test. Int J Audiol, 2019; 59(1): 33–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
46.
Emami SF. The use of homotonic monosyllabic words in the Persian language for the Word-in-Noise Perception Test. Audit Vestib Res, 2023. https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v....
47.
Philibert B, Veuillet E, Collet L. Functional asymmetries of crossed and uncrossed medial olivocochlear efferent pathways in humans. Neurosci Lett, 1998; 253(2): 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-....
48.
Guinan JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(6): 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud....
49.
Mertes IB, Wilbanks EC, Leek MR. Olivocochlear efferent activity is associated with the slope of the psychometric function of speech recognition in noise. Ear Hear, 2017; 39(3): 583–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.00....
50.
Mertes IB, Johnson KM, Dinger ZA. Olivocochlear efferent contributions to speech-in-noise recognition across signal-to-noise ratios. J Acoust Soc Am, 2019; 145(3): 1529–40. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5094....
51.
Yumba WK. Influences of listener gender and working memory capacity on speech recognition in noise for hearing aid users. Speech Lang Hear, 2020; 25(2): 112–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/205057....
52.
Halpern DF. A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2004; 13(4): 135–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963....
53.
Luders E, Gaser C, Narr KL, Toga AW. Why sex matters: brain size independent differences in grey matter distributions between men and women. J Neurosci, 2009; 29(45): 14265–70. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneuro....
54.
Jäncke L, Wüstenberg T, Scheich H, Heinze H. Phonetic perception and the temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 2002; 15(4): 733–46. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2....
55.
Frye RE, Fisher JM, Witzel T, Ahlfors SP, Swank P, Liederman J, Halgren E. Objective phonological and subjective perceptual characteristics of syllables modulate spatiotemporal patterns of superior temporal gyrus activity. NeuroImage, 2008; 40(4): 1888–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neur....
56.
McArdle R, Wilson RH. Predicting word-recognition performance in noise by young listeners with normal hearing using acoustic, phonetic, and lexical variables. J Am Acad Audiol, 2008; 19(6): 507–18. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.1....
57.
Cruickshanks KJ, Tweed TS, Wiley TL, Klein BEK, Klein R, Chappell R, Nondahl DM, Dalton DS. The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2003; 129(10): 1041. https://doi.org/10.1001/archot....
58.
Banks B, Gowen E, Munro KJ, Adank P. Cognitive predictors of perceptual adaptation to accented speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 2015; 137(4): 2015–24. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4916....
59.
Schoof T, Rosen S. The role of age-related declines in subcortical auditory processing in speech perception in noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2016; 17(5): 441–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162....
60.
Han JH, Kim JH, Park GK, Lee HJ. Preserved grey matter volume in the left superior temporal gyrus underpins speech-in-noise processing in middle-aged adults. J Int Adv Otol, 2024; 20(1): 62–8. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.20....
61.
Pichora-Fuller MK. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol, 2003; 42(Suppl 2): 26–32. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
