This paper describes a shortened and improved version of the Speech in Noise (SIN™) Test (Etymotic Research, 1993). In the first two of four experiments, the level of a female talker relative to that of four-talker babble was adjusted sentence by sentence to produce 50% correct scores for normal-hearing subjects. In the second two experiments, those sentences-in-babble that produced either lack of equivalence or high across-subject variability in scores were discarded. These experiments produced 12 equivalent lists, each containing six sentences, with one sentence at each adjusted signal-to-noise ratio of 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, and 0 dB. Six additional lists were also made equivalent when the scores of particular pairs were averaged. The final lists comprise the “QuickSIN” test that measures the SNR a listener requires to understand 50% of key words in sentences in a background of babble. The standard deviation of single-list scores is 1.4 dB SNR for hearing-impaired subjects, based on test-retest data. A single QuickSIN list takes approximately one minute to administer and provides an estimate of SNR loss accurate to at the 95% confidence level.
REFERENCES
1.
ANSI (1996). ANSI S3.6-1996 “American National Standard Specification for Audiometers” (American National Standards Institute, New York).
2.
Auditec of St. Louis (1971). “Four-talker babble,” 2515 S. Big Bend Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63143-2105.
3.
Bacon
, S. P.
, Opie
, J. M.
, and Montoya
, D. Y.
(1998
). “The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds
,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.
41
, 549
–563
.4.
Bentler
, R. A.
(2000
). “List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the Speech in Noise Test
,” Am. J. Audiol.
9
, 84
–100
.5.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication (Pergamon, New York).
6.
Carver, W. (1991). Auditec of St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Personal communication.
7.
Chung, K. (2001). “Effects of input-output functions on speech recognition and preference ratings (for subjects with normal hearing and with selected hearing losses),” doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.
8.
Cox
, R. M.
, and Moore
, J. N.
(1988
). “Composite speech spectrum for hearing aid gain prescriptions
,” J. Speech Hear. Res.
31
, 102
–107
.9.
Cox
, R. M.
, Gray
, G. A.
, and Alexander
, G. C.
(2001
). “Evaluation of a revised Speech in Noise (RSIN) test
,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol
12
, 423
–432
.10.
Dirks, D. D. (1982). “Comments Regarding ‘Speech Discrimination Ability in the Hearing-Impaired,’ ” in The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report, edited by G. Studebaker and F. Bess (Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, Upper Darby, PA), pp. 44–50.
11.
Dirks
, D. D.
, Morgan
, D. E.
, and Dubno
, J. R.
(1982
). “A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition
,” J. Speech Hear Disord.
47
, 114
–123
.12.
13.
Etymotic Research (1993). “The SIN Test,” (Compact Disk) 61 Martin Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007.
14.
Fikret-Pasa, S. (1993). “The effects of compression ratio on speech intelligibility and quality,” doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.
15.
Hood
, J. D.
, and Poole
, J. P.
(1980
). “Influence of the Speaker and Other Factors Affecting Speech Intelligibility
,” Audiology
19
, 434
–455
.16.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1969). “IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements,” Appendix C. Global Engineering Documents, Boulder, CO.
17.
Killion
, M. C.
(1997
). “The SIN report: Circuits haven’t solved the hearing-in-noise problem
,” Hear. J.
50
(10
), 28
–32
.18.
Killion
, M. C.
, and Christensen
, L. A.
(1998
). “The case of the missing dots: AI and SNR loss
,” Hear. J.
51
, 32
–47
.19.
Killion
, M. C.
, and Niquette
, P. A.
(2000
). “What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient’s SNR loss?
” Hear. J.
53
, 46
–53
.20.
Killion
, M. C.
, and Villchur
, E.
(1993
). “Kessler Was Right—Partly: But SIN Test Shows Some Aids Improve Hearing in Noise
,” Hear. J.
46
(9
), 31
–35
.21.
Killion, M. C., Olsen, W. O., Clifford, C. L., VanVliet, D. D., Rose, D. E., Bensen, D. E., Marion, M. W., Tillman, P. A., Hawkins, D. B., Dalzell, S. M., and Fabry, D. A. (1996). “Preliminary data on the SIN Test,” presented at the annual convention of the American Academy of Audiology, Salt Lake City, UT.
22.
Kochkin
, S.
(1992
). “MarkeTrak III identifies key factors in determining consumer satisfaction
,” Hear. J.
45
(8
), 39
–44
.23.
Kochkin
, S.
(1993
). “MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in US don’t use hearing aids for their hearing loss
,” Hear. J.
46
(1
), 20
–27
.24.
Kochkin
, S.
(1995
). “Customer satisfaction and benefit with CIC hearing instruments
,” Hear. Rev.
2
(4
), 16
–24
.25.
Kochkin
, S.
(1996
). “Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high performance hearing aids
,” Hear. Rev.
3
(12
), 16
–26
.26.
Kochkiǹ
, S.
(2000
). “MarkeTrak V: ‘Why my hearing aids are in the drawer: The consumers’ perspective
,” Hear. J.
53
(2
), 34
–42
.27.
Kochkin
, S.
(2002
). “10-Year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market
,” Hear. Rev.
9
(10
), 14
–46
.28.
Lyregaard
, P. E.
(1982
). “Frequency selectivity and speech intelligibility in noise
,” Scand. Audiol. Suppl.
15
, 113
–122
.29.
Martin
, F. N.
, Champlin
, C. A.
, and Perez
, D. D.
(2000
). “The Question of Phonetic Balance in Word Recognition Testing
,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol.
11
, 489
–493
.30.
Miller, R. (1966). Simultaneous Statistical Inference (McGraw–Hill, New York).
31.
Mueller
, H. G.
, and Killion
, M. C.
(1990
). “An easy method for calculating the articulation index
,” Hear. J.
43
(9
), 14
–17
.32.
Nilsson
, M.
, Soli
, S. D.
, and Sullivan
, J. A.
(1994
). “Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
95
, 1085
–1099
.33.
Rabinowitz
, W. M.
, Eddington
, D. K.
, Delhorne
, L. A.
, and Cuneo
, P. A.
(1992
). “Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
92
, 1869
–1881
.34.
Skinner, M. W. (1976). “Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high frequency compensation,” doctoral dissertation, Washington University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.
35.
36.
Taylor
, B. J.
(2003
). “Speech-in-noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery
,” Hear. J.
56
(1
), 40
–46
.37.
Tillman, T. W., and Carhart, R. (1966). “An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words: Northwestern University auditory test No. 6,” SAM-TR-66-55.
38.
Tillman, T. W., and Olsen, W. O. (1973). “Speech audiometry,” in Modern Developments in Audiology (Second Edition), edited by J. Jerger (Academic, New York), pp. 37–74.
39.
Tillman, T. W., Carhart, R., and Wilber, L. (1963). “A test for speech discrimination composed of CNC monosyllabic words (N.U. auditory test No. 4),” SAM-TDR-62.
40.
Valente
, M.
, and Van Vliet
, D. D.
(1997
). “The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol
,” Trends Amplif.
2
(1
), 6
–35
.41.
van Buuren
, R. A.
, Festen
, J. M.
, and Plomp
, R.
(1995
). “Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired
,” J. Speech Hear. Res.
38
, 211
–221
.42.
Villchur, E. (1982). “The evaluation of amplitude-compression processing for hearing aids,” in The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report, edited by G. Studebaker and F. Bess (Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, Upper Darby, PA), pp. 141–143.
43.
Witting
, E. G.
, and Hughson
, W.
(1940
). “Inherent accuracy of a series of repeated clinical audiograms
,” Laryngoscope
50
, 259
–269
.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 Acoustical Society of America.
2004
Acoustical Society of America
You do not currently have access to this content.
