Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions.
Abstract
In adaptive Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) tests used in the audiological clinic, speech is presented at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) that are lower than those generally encountered in real-life communication situations. At higher, ecologically valid SNRs, however, SRTs are insensitive to changes in hearing aid signal processing that may be of benefit to listeners who are hard of hearing. Previous studies conducted in Swedish using the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall test (SWIR) have indicated that at such SNRs, the ability to recall spoken words may be a more informative measure. In the present study, a Danish version of SWIR, known as the S entence-final W ord I dentification and R ecall Test in a New L anguage (SWIRL) was introduced and evaluated in two experiments. The objective of experiment 1 was to determine if the Swedish results demonstrating benefit from noise reduction signal processing for hearing aid wearers could be replicated in 25 Danish participants with mild to moderate symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The objective of experiment 2 was to compare direct-drive and skin-drive transmission in 16 Danish users of bone-anchored hearing aids with conductive hearing loss or mixed sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. In experiment 1, performance on SWIRL improved when hearing aid noise reduction was used, replicating the Swedish results and generalizing them across languages. In experiment 2, performance on SWIRL was better for direct-drive compared with skin-drive transmission conditions. These findings indicate that spoken word recall can be used to identify benefits from hearing aid signal processing at ecologically valid, positive SNRs where SRTs are insensitive.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other tests of listening working memory discussed at the workshop include the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall test, the Cognitive Spare Capacity test, and the Auditory Interference Span test.
“Other tests of listening working memory discussed at the workshop include the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall test (Lunner et al 2016, this issue, pp. 145S-154S), the Cognitive Spare Capacity test and the Auditory Interference Span test (Rudner 2016, this issue, pp. 69S-76S), which have been developed specifically to measure spare capacity using Swedish speech materials.”
From Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL) (2016) · cites this paper as Lunner et al 2016
Measures of effort could be used to assess how much capacity is allocated to listening as demands increase but before the limits of available capacity are exceeded.
“In contrast, the appeal of measures of effort is that they could be used to assess how much capacity is allocated to listening as demands increase but before the limits of available capacity are exceeded (see Lunner et al 2016, this issue, pp. 145S-154S).”
From Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL) (2016) · cites this paper as Lunner et al 2016
Cites
Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL)
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W. Y., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C. L., et al. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000312 · Cited by 1,318 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…where word recognition accuracy is almost perfect, so these reports must stem from difficulties that are not reflected in measures of word recognition accuracy, for example, the high listening effort required in such situations (consensus paper, Pichora-Fuller et al. 2016, this issue, pp. 5S–27S).”
BackgroundSelf-citationHow young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.412282 · Cited by 1,089 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…2015) used a memory recall paradigm referred to as the sentence-final word identification and recall (SWIR) that was inspired by the studies of Pichora-Fuller et al. (1995) and Sarampalis et al. (2009) to evaluate the effect of NR on higher-level processing of speech in participants who were…”
MethodSpeech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.705006 · Cited by 809 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…to speech when the quality of the signal is poor may require the allocation of attentional and/or working memory resources (for a discussion see Mattys et al. 2012), it is of interest to determine if memory recall paradigms could show such effects in users of hearing devices for which sound…”
BackgroundMcGarrigle, R., Munro, K. J., Dawes, P., Stewart, A. J., Moore, D. R., Barry, J. G., & Amitay, S. (2014) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.3109/14992027.2014.890296 · Cited by 532 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, theoretical understanding, the definition and clinical meaning of listening effort and methods for measuring it remain in development (McGarrigle et al. 2014; Rudner & Lunner 2014).”
BackgroundMild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ
Rabbitt, P. (1991) · Acta Oto-Laryngologica · doi:10.3109/00016489109127274 · Cited by 308 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL)
Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M. A., Edwards, B., Hornsby, B. W. Y., Humes, L. E., Lemke, U., Lunner, T., Matthen, M., Mackersie, C. L., et al. (2016) · Ear & Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000312 · Cited by 1,318 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lunner, T., Rudner, M., Rosenbom, T., Ågren, J., & Ng, E. H. N.
- Affiliations
- Oticon Medical (Denmark) (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Lunner, Thomas
- Venue
- Ear & Hearing
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 145S-154S
- ISSN
- 0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2472473037
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ear and Hearing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
- Keywords
- speech recall, speech reception threshold, hearing aid fitting, swirling flow, conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss, signal-to-noise ratio, ecological validity, Danish language
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Denmark, Female, Hearing Aids, Hearing Loss, Conductive, Hearing Loss, Sensorineural, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Noise, Mental Recall, Speech Perception, Speech Reception Threshold Test, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Prosthesis Fitting, Signal-To-Noise Ratio
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review