Introduction: Purpose of our study was to compare two competing methods of performing bisyllabic word speech audiometry for the detection of the 50% speech reception threshold in noise (SRT50). Methods: Classic method is performed submitting multiple word lists at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. A newer Fast method - Italian Fast Speech Reception Threshold 50 (IFastSRT50) - is performed by means of program software with a single list of bisyllabic words and noise intensity shifting. Results: Means comparison between SRT50 Classic and IFastSRT50 shows a slight significant correlation (r = 0.263; p = 0.044) and a wide significant difference: SRT50 Classic = -2.763 dB (SD = 4.1) and IFastSRT50 = -7.803 dB (SD = 2.1) (p < 0.0001). There is a high difference between the test execution time means (SRT50 Classic = 11 min, IFastSRT50 = 2 min; p < 0.0001). The correlation between test results and execution times was higher for SRT50 Classic than IFastSRT50. Conclusion: IFastSRT50 test is a reliable method to quickly investigate signal-to-noise ratio needed to obtain 50% of recognition scores with bisyllabic words; it allows less execution time than SRT50 Classic method and can avoid patient fatigue and other limitations of different speech discrimination tests in noise as sentences based ones.
Italian Fast Speech Reception Threshold Test: A New Method to Investigate Adult Auditory Impairment in Noise
Forli, Francesca;Berrettini, Stefano;
2024-01-01
Abstract
Introduction: Purpose of our study was to compare two competing methods of performing bisyllabic word speech audiometry for the detection of the 50% speech reception threshold in noise (SRT50). Methods: Classic method is performed submitting multiple word lists at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. A newer Fast method - Italian Fast Speech Reception Threshold 50 (IFastSRT50) - is performed by means of program software with a single list of bisyllabic words and noise intensity shifting. Results: Means comparison between SRT50 Classic and IFastSRT50 shows a slight significant correlation (r = 0.263; p = 0.044) and a wide significant difference: SRT50 Classic = -2.763 dB (SD = 4.1) and IFastSRT50 = -7.803 dB (SD = 2.1) (p < 0.0001). There is a high difference between the test execution time means (SRT50 Classic = 11 min, IFastSRT50 = 2 min; p < 0.0001). The correlation between test results and execution times was higher for SRT50 Classic than IFastSRT50. Conclusion: IFastSRT50 test is a reliable method to quickly investigate signal-to-noise ratio needed to obtain 50% of recognition scores with bisyllabic words; it allows less execution time than SRT50 Classic method and can avoid patient fatigue and other limitations of different speech discrimination tests in noise as sentences based ones.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
