Consonant-Recognition Patterns and Self-Assessment of Hearing Handicap Two companion experiments were conducted with normal-hearing subjects and subjects with high-frequency, sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, the validity of a self-assessment device of hearing handicap was evaluated in two groups of hearing-impaired listeners with significantly different consonant-recognition ability. Data for the Hearing Performance Inventory—Revised (Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1991
Consonant-Recognition Patterns and Self-Assessment of Hearing Handicap
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Carol Goldschmidt Hustedde
    Lexington, Kentucky
  • Terry L. Wiley
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Requests for reprints should be addressed to Carol G. Hustedde, PhD, 517 Ashley Way, Lexington, KY 40503.
Article Information
Hearing / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1991
Consonant-Recognition Patterns and Self-Assessment of Hearing Handicap
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1991, Vol. 34, 1397-1409. doi:10.1044/jshr.3406.1397
History: Received November 28, 1990 , Accepted March 14, 1991
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1991, Vol. 34, 1397-1409. doi:10.1044/jshr.3406.1397
History: Received November 28, 1990; Accepted March 14, 1991

Two companion experiments were conducted with normal-hearing subjects and subjects with high-frequency, sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, the validity of a self-assessment device of hearing handicap was evaluated in two groups of hearing-impaired listeners with significantly different consonant-recognition ability. Data for the Hearing Performance Inventory—Revised (Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, 1983) did not reveal differences in self-perceived handicap for the two groups of hearing-impaired listeners; it was sensitive to perceived differences in hearing abilities for listeners who did and did not have a hearing loss. Experiment 2 was aimed at evaluation of consonant error patterns that accounted for observed group differences in consonant-recognition ability. Error patterns on the Nonsense-Syllable Test (NST) across the two subject groups differed in both degree and type of error. Listeners in the group with poorer NST performance always demonstrated greater difficulty with selected low-frequency and high-frequency syllables than did listeners in the group with better NST performance. Overall, the NST was sensitive to differences in consonant-recognition ability for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Acknowledgments
This work was based on a doctoral dissertation by the first author; portions of this paper were presented at the 1988 meeting of the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in Boston, MA. The authors wish to thank Mary Joe Osberger and Gerald A. Studebaker for their editorial advice and Dee Vetter for her assistance in statistical analyses. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Research Grant NS 15996 from the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Diseases and Stroke.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access