Cited by 61Hearing Loss and RehabilitationSpeech and Audio ProcessingHearing Impairment and Communication

Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions.

Lunner, Thomas, Rudner, Mary, Rosenbom, Tove, Ågren, Jessica, Ng, Elaine Hoi Ning·2016·Ear & Hearing

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

Crossref · 10.1097/aud.0000000000000294

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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