A convergent validity study: Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S) test and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT).

OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to compare Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentence (LiSN-S) test and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) thresholds in order to determine if the two tests measure the same construct (convergent validity). The secondary purpose was to determine performance differences between the two test protocols. The third purpose was to determine the relationships between quiet measures (pure-tone average [PTA] and HINT Quiet thresholds) vs. speech-in-noise performances. DESIGN: Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman rho statistic, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear mixed model analyses. Study sample: Fifty-six young adults with normal PTAs (≤15 dB HL for 0.5-4.0 kHz) participated in this study. RESULTS: No statistically significant relationships were found between LiSN-S and HINT measures (poor convergent validity). However, statistically significant relationships were found between the quiet measures (HINT Quiet thresholds and average PTA(0.5-4.0 kHz)) vs. the LiSN-S (same and different voices) ±90° performances. CONCLUSION: LiSN-S performances in two-talker babble cannot be generalized to the ability to recognise HINT sentences in steady-state speech-shaped noise, and vice versa. The results imply that LiSN-S ± 90° thresholds were influenced by hearing sensitivity or by supra-threshold distortions that co-vary with hearing sensitivity.

The relationship between speech recognition in noise and non-speech recognition in noise test performances: Implications for central auditory processing disorders testing.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Audiology, a recommendation for frequency-modulation systems may be based upon performances on speech perception tests that do not include background noise. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the presumption that non-speech recognition in noise test results are related to speech recognition in noise ability for a group of young adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: Performances on the non-speech recognition in noise tests included in the SCAN-3:A test battery were compared to speech recognition in noise performances as measured with the auditory figure ground subtest of the SCAN-3:A and the Hearing in Noise Test. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-four young, native speakers of American English with normal pure-tone thresholds participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the purposes of this study, the SCAN-3:A raw scores were used. The Hearing in Noise Test was administered in a simulated soundfield environment under headphones. The Spearman rho statistic was used to determine the relationships between non-speech recognition in noise vs. speech recognition in noise test results. RESULTS: No significant relationships were found between the auditory figure-ground results and any of the non-speech recognition in noise subtest performances. Modest but statistically significant relationships were found between the Hearing in Noise Test Composite scores vs. the competing words-directed ear and the time compressed sentences subtests of the SCAN-3:A. CONCLUSION: Of the four non-speech recognition in noise subtests that were evaluated, only the competing words-directed ear and the time-compressed sentences performances were significantly correlated to the Composite scores of the Hearing in Noise Test. The results demonstrated a limited external validity for two of the four non-SRN tests for the determination of SRN ability.

The Relationship between Random Gap Detection and Hearing in Noise Test Performances.

BACKGROUND: Temporal acoustic cues are particularly important for speech understanding, and past research has inferred a relationship between temporal resolution and speech recognition in noise ability. A temporal resolution disorder is thought to affect speech understanding abilities because persons would not be able to accurately encode these frequency transitions, creating speech discrimination errors even in the presence of normal pure-tone hearing. PURPOSE: The primary purpose was to investigate the relationship between temporal resolution as measured by the Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) and speech recognition in noise performance as measured by the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in adults with normal audiometric thresholds. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between temporal resolution and spatial release from masking. RESEARCH DESIGN: The HINT and RGDT protocols were administered under headphones according to the guidelines specified by the developers. The HINT uses an adaptive protocol to determine the signal-to-noise ratio where the participant recognizes 50% of the sentences. For HINT conditions, the target sentences were presented at 0° and the steady-state speech-shaped noise and a four-talker babble (4TB) was presented at 0°, +90°, or -90° for noise front, noise right, and noise left conditions, respectively. The RGDT is used to evaluate temporal resolution by determining the smallest time interval between two matching stimuli that can be detected by the participant. The RGDT threshold is the shortest time interval where the participant detects a gap. Tonal (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and click stimuli random gap subtests were presented at 60 dB HL. Tonal subtests were presented in a random order to minimize presentation order effects. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-one young, native English-speaking participants with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤25 dB HL for 500-4000 Hz) participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 20.2 years (SD = 0.66). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Spearman rho correlation coefficients were conducted using SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to determine the relationships between HINT and RGDT thresholds and derived measures (spatial advantage and composite scores). Nonparametric testing was used because of the ordinal nature of RGDT data. RESULTS: Moderate negative correlations (p < 0.05) were found between eight RGDT and HINT threshold measures and a moderate positive correlation (p < 0.05) was found between RGDT click thresholds and HINT 4TB spatial advantage. This suggests that as temporal resolution abilities worsened, speech recognition in noise performance improved. These correlations were not statistically significant after the p value reflected the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study imply that the RGDT and HINT use different temporal processes. Performance on the RGDT cannot be predicted from HINT thresholds or vice versa.