Article  |   April 2012
Relationship Between Consonant Recognition in Noise and Hearing Threshold
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Yang-soo Yoon
    House Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • Jont B. Allen
    University of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign
  • David M. Gooler
    University of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign
  • Correspondence to Yang-soo Yoon: yyoon@hei.org
  • Editor: Robert Schlauch
    Editor: Robert Schlauch×
  • Associate Editor: Kathryn Arehart
    Associate Editor: Kathryn Arehart×
Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Hearing Disorders / Hearing
Article   |   April 2012
Relationship Between Consonant Recognition in Noise and Hearing Threshold
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 460-473. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0239)
History: Accepted 19 Jul 2011 , Received 25 Aug 2010 , Revised 11 Apr 2011
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 460-473. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0239)
History: Accepted 19 Jul 2011 , Received 25 Aug 2010 , Revised 11 Apr 2011

Purpose: Although poorer understanding of speech in noise by listeners who are hearing-impaired (HI) is known not to be directly related to audiometric hearing threshold, HT (f), grouping HI listeners with HT (f) is widely practiced. In this article, the relationship between consonant recognition and HT (f) is considered over a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).

Method: Confusion matrices (CMs) from 25 HI ears were generated in response to 16 consonant-vowel syllables presented at 6 different SNRs. Individual differences scaling (INDSCAL) was applied to both feature-based matrices and CMs in order to evaluate the relationship between HT (f) and consonant recognition among HI listeners.

Results: The results showed no predictive relationship between the percent error scores (Pe) and HT (f) across SNRs. The multiple regression models showed that the HT (f) accounted for 39% of the total variance of the slopes of the Pe. Feature-based INDSCAL analysis showed consistent grouping of listeners across SNRs, but not in terms of HT (f). Systematic relationship between measures was also not defined by CM-based INDSCAL analysis across SNRs.

Conclusions: HT (f) did not account for the majority of the variance (39%) in consonant recognition in noise when the complete body of the CM was considered.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Coordinator’s Column
SIG 6 Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics February 2009, Vol.13, 2-3. doi:10.1044/hhd13.1.2
The Effects of Digital Signal Processing Features on Children's Speech Recognition and Loudness Perception
American Journal of Audiology March 2014, Vol.23, 99-115. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2013/13-0024)
Using the Speech Understanding in Noise (SUN) Test for Adult Hearing Screening1
American Journal of Audiology June 2013, Vol.22, 171-174. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0055)
Planet of Sound
The ASHA Leader May 2013, Vol.18, 34-43. doi:10.1044/leader.FTR1.18052013.34
Effects of Noise Suppression on Intelligibility: Experts' Opinions and Naïve Normal-Hearing Listeners' Performance
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2013, Vol.56, 404-415. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0286)