الفهرس 
Speech in noise testsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 172 |  |  |
| | | from | 172 | | |
Abstract
Selecting the ideal hearing aid for a patient is a blend of art and science. While a basic pure-tone configuration may have once steered our decision making, real-world speech tests have now taken center stage as an objective measuring tool with which to select amplification. Speech in noise (SIN) testing for some may be a very routine practice, and for others may seem a bit daunting because it is an unknown (Taylor, 2011). According to classification which is suggested by Taylor (2003 & 2011), there are objective intelligibility tests which feature adaptive signal to noise ratios: Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) (Nilsson et al, 1994); Words in Noise (WIN) (Wilson, 2003; Wilson and Burks, 2005); Quick Speech in noise Test (QuickSIN) (Etymotic Research, 2001; Killion et al., 2004), and Bamford-Kowal-Bench SIN (BKB-SIN) (Bench et al., 1979; Niquette et al., 2003; Etymotic Research, 2005). And, there are other tests that feature fixed level noise: Connected Speech Test (CST) (Cox et al., 1987); and Speech Perception in Noise Test (SPIN) (Kalikow et al., 1977)(Shi et al., 2007). It has been suggested that sentence-length speech-in noise tests that result in a SNR score (such as the HINT and the Quick SIN tests) overcome limitations associated with word-length tests that use the traditional percent correct score. Percent correct tests may be prone to floor and ceiling effects (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994), and do not indicate SNR needs, a phenomenon that cannot be reliably predicted from the audiogram (Killion, 1997b). Sentence length materials may redress limitations associated with single word-length tests. Specifically, single word materials do not include the co articulation effects or dynamic range of conversational speech, and single words lack the real world relevance provided by sentence-length stimuli (Killion & Niquette, 2000; Nilsson, Sullivan, & Soli, 1990).