Richard H. Wilson

A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble.

A speech-in-multitalker-babble test instrument was developed for use in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) multicenter study examining the effects of hearing loss on self-perceived quality of life. Word recognition in quiet and in multitalker babble was measured on 24 listeners with normal hearing and 24 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. The protocol involved the presentation of 10 monosyllabic words (each in a unique babble segment) at each of seven signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios from 24 dB to 0 dB, with the babble fixed at 60 dB HL (hearing loss). Word recognition in quiet at 60 dB and 80 dB HL for both groups was >90% correct. Two trials on the task were conducted. In babble, the 50% correct points were at 4.1 dB and 9.4 dB S/B for the listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss, respectively, with the 90th percentile for the listeners with normal hearing at 6 dB S/B. Twenty-two of the twenty-four listeners with hearing loss had 50% correct points outside of the 90th percentile for listeners with normal hearing. Test-retest reliability was excellent.

A Multimedia Approach for Estimating Speech Recognition of Multilingual Clients

Spanish picture-identification materials have been created specifically for presentation in a computer-driven multimedia format. Normative performance data in conventional oral, open-set conditions...

A comparison of word-recognition abilities assessed with digit pairs and digit triplets in multitalker babble.

This study compares, for listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss, the recognition performances obtained with digit-pair and digit-triplet stimulus sets presented in multitalker babble. Digits 1 through 10 (excluding 7) were mixed in approximately 1,000 ms segments of babble from 4 to -20 dB signal-to-babble (S/B) ratios, concatenated to form the pairs and triplets, and recorded on compact disc. Nine and eight digits were presented at each level for the digit-triplet and digit-pair paradigms, respectively. For the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss, the recognition performances were 3 dB and 1.2 dB better, respectively, on digit pairs than on digit triplets. For equal intelligibility, the listeners with hearing loss required an approximately 10 dB more favorable S/B than the listeners with normal hearing. The distributions of the 50% points for the two groups had no overlap.

Effects of long-term vasodilator therapy on electrocardiographic abnormalities in chronic aortic regurgitation

Electrocardiographic abnormalities develop in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation (AR). Although vasodilator drugs may reduce left ventricular (LV) volume overload, the effects of such therapy on electrocardiographic abnormalities have not been previously evaluated. Accordingly, electrocardiograms were analyzed before and after double-blind, randomized administration of either hydralazine or placebo in 54 patients with chronic AR. These patients were without limiting symptoms and had preserved ejection fraction on entry in the study. The magnitude of ST-segment depression and Romhilt-Estes point score for LV hypertrophy were assessed. Baseline ST depression and LV hypertrophy scores in the placebo and hydralazine groups were not significantly different. At follow-up, after a mean of 19 +/- 6 months, there was a significant reduction in ST depression in patients taking hydralazine (n = 28) compared with patients given placebo (n = 26): -0.023 +/- 0.044 vs 0.029 +/- 0.055 mV, respectively (p = 0.0001); and in the LV hypertrophy score (-1.1 +/- 2.2 vs 0.9 +/- 2.3 points, respectively; p = 0.002). Hydralazine-treated patients also had significant decreases in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes, and a significant increase in ejection fraction. These results suggest that such vasodilator therapy may be beneficial in patients with chronic AR.

The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN), list 3: a practice list.

BACKGROUNDnThe Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was developed as an instrument to quantify the ability of listeners to understand monosyllabic words in background noise using multitalker babble (Wilson, 2003). The 50% point, which is calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), is used as the evaluative metric with the WIN materials. Initially, the WIN was designed as a 70-word instrument that presented ten unique words at each of seven signal-to-noise ratios from 24 to 0 dB in 4 dB decrements. Subsequently, the 70-word list was parsed into two 35-word lists that achieved equivalent recognition performances (Wilson and Burks, 2005). This report involves the development of a third list (WIN List 3) that was developed to serve as a practice list to familiarize the participant with listening to words presented in background babble.nnnPURPOSEnTo determine-on young listeners with normal hearing and on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss-the psychometric properties of the WIN List 3 materials.nnnRESEARCH DESIGNnA quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.nnnSTUDY SAMPLEnTwenty-four young adult listeners (Mu200a=u200a21.6 yr) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤ 20 dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) and 24 older listeners (Mu200a=u200a65.9 yr) with sensorineural hearing loss participated.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnThe level of the babble was fixed at 80 dB SPL with the level of the words varied from 104 to 80 dB SPL in 4 dB decrements.nnnRESULTSnFor listeners with normal hearing, the 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 were similar (4.3 and 5.1 dB S/N, respectively), both of which were lower than the 50% point for List 3 (7.4 dB S/N). A similar relation was observed with the listeners with hearing loss, 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 of 12.2 and 12.4 dB S/N, respectively, compared to 15.8 dB S/N for List 3. The differences between Lists 1 and 2 and List 3 were significant. The relations among the psychometric functions and the relations among the individual data both reflected these differences.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe significant ∼3 dB difference between performances on WIN Lists 1 and 2 and on WIN List 3 by the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss dictates caution with the use of List 3. The use of WIN List 3 should be reserved for ancillary purposes in which equivalent recognition performances are not required, for example, as a practice list or a stand alone measure.