Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8lnk4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T11:29:54.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of compact disk recording protocols on reliability and comparability of speech audiometry outcomes: acoustic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

F Di Berardino ,
G Tognola ,
A Paglialonga ,
D Alpini ,
F Grandori  and
A Cesarani
F Di Berardino
Affiliation:
Audiology Unit, Fondazione Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Cà Granda – Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, and the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Milan, Italy
G Tognola*
Affiliation:
Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Milan, Italy
A Paglialonga
Affiliation:
Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Milan, Italy
D Alpini
Affiliation:
ENT Otoneurology Service, Scientific Institute S Maria Nascente, Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Milan, Italy
F Grandori
Affiliation:
Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Milan, Italy
A Cesarani
Affiliation:
Audiology Unit, Fondazione Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Cà Granda – Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, and the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Milan, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Gabriella Tognola, Istituto di Ingegneria Biomedica CNR, c/o Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milan, Italy. Fax: +39 02 23993367 E-mail: gabriella.tognola@polimi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess whether different compact disk recording protocols, used to prepare speech test material, affect the reliability and comparability of speech audiometry testing.

Material and methods:

We conducted acoustic analysis of compact disks used in clinical practice, to determine whether speech material had been recorded using similar procedures. To assess the impact of different recording procedures on speech test outcomes, normal hearing subjects were tested using differently prepared compact disks, and their psychometric curves compared.

Results:

Acoustic analysis revealed that speech material had been recorded using different protocols. The major difference was the gain between the levels at which the speech material and the calibration signal had been recorded. Although correct calibration of the audiometer was performed for each compact disk before testing, speech recognition thresholds and maximum intelligibility thresholds differed significantly between compact disks (p < 0.05), and were influenced by the gain between the recording level of the speech material and the calibration signal.

Conclusion:

To ensure the reliability and comparability of speech test outcomes obtained using different compact disks, it is recommended to check for possible differences in the recording gains used to prepare the compact disks, and then to compensate for any differences before testing.

Keywords

AudiometrySpeechHearing LevelTest Reliability

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 8 , August 2010 , pp. 859 - 863
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Jerger, J, Jerger, S, Pirozzolo, F. Correlational analysis of speech audiometric scores, hearing loss, age, and cognitive abilities in the elderly. Ear Hear 1991;12:103–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Martini, A, Mazzoli, M, Rosignoli, M, Trevisi, P, Maggi, S, Enzi, G et al. Hearing in the elderly: a population study. Audiology 2001;40:285–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Bocca, E, Pellegrini, A. Statistical study of the phonetic composition of the Italian language and its practical application in audiometry with words [in Italian]. Arch Ital Otol 1950;5:45–84Google Scholar
4 Turrini, M, Cutugno, F, Maturi, P, Prosser, S, Albano Leoni, F, Arslan, E. Bisyllabic words for speech audiometry: a new Italian material [in Italian]. Acta Otorhinol Ital 1993;13:63–77Google ScholarPubMed
5 Todini, L. Bisyllabic words for speech audiometry [in Italian]. In: Amigoni, E, Todini, L, Nume, F, Del Bo, L, eds. Test di Valutazione della Percezione Uditiva. Milano: Edizioni Aurion, 1997;2–48Google Scholar
6 European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). Sound Level Meters (EN 60651:1994). Brussels: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, 1994Google Scholar
7 European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Acoustics – Audiometric test methods – Part 2: Sound Field Audiometry with Pure Tone and Narrow-Band Test Signals (EN ISO 8252-2:1992). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 1992Google Scholar
8 Becker, W, Naumann, HH, Pfaltz, CR, Buckingham, RA, eds. Ear, Nose, and Throat Diseases: A Pocket Reference, 2nd edn. New York: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1994Google Scholar
9 Brinkmann, K, Richter, U. Ensuring reliability and comparability of speech audiometry in Germany. In: Martin, M, ed. Speech Audiometry, 2nd edn. London: Whurr, 1997;106–30Google Scholar
10 European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). Audiometers. Part 2: Equipment for Speech Audiometry (EN 60645-2:1997). Brussels: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, 1997Google Scholar
11 European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Acoustics. Audiometric Test Methods – Part 3: Speech Audiometry (EN ISO 8253-3:1998). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 1998Google Scholar
12 American National Standards Institute. Specifications for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-2004). New York: American National Standards Institute, 2004Google Scholar
13 Calibration of Speech Signals Delivered Via Earphones. www.asha.org/policy [18 March 2010]Google Scholar