Li Yongxin, Wang Shuncheng, Su Qiaodang, Galvin John J, Fu Qian-Jie
a Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery , Beijing TongRen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Ministry of Education of China , Beijing , P. R. China and.
b Department of Head and Neck Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine , UCLA , Los Angeles , CA , USA.
Int J Audiol. 2017;56(sup2):S31-S40. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1204564. Epub 2016 Jul 14.
Speech materials validated with normal-hearing listeners may not be appropriate for clinical assessment of cochlear implant (CI) users. The aim of this study was to validate list equivalency of the Mandarin Speech Perception (MSP) sentences, disyllables, and monosyllables in Mandarin-speaking CI patients.
Recognition of MSP sentences, disyllables, and monosyllables each were measured for all 10 lists.
67 adult and 32 pediatric Mandarin-speaking CI users.
There was no significant difference between adult and pediatric subject groups for all test materials. Significant differences were observed among lists within each test. After removing one or two lists within each test, no significant differences were observed among the remaining lists. While there was equal variance among lists within a given test, the variance was larger for children than for adults, and increased from monosyllables to disyllables to sentences.
Some adjustment to test lists previously validated with CI simulations was needed to create perceptually equivalent lists for real CI users, suggesting that test materials should be validated in the targeted population. Differences in mean scores and variance across test materials suggest that CI users may differ in their ability to make use of contextual cues available in sentences and disyllables.
经听力正常听众验证的言语材料可能不适用于人工耳蜗(CI)使用者的临床评估。本研究的目的是验证汉语人工耳蜗患者中汉语言语感知(MSP)句子、双音节词和单音节词列表的等效性。
对所有10个列表分别测量MSP句子、双音节词和单音节词的识别率。
67名成年和32名儿童汉语人工耳蜗使用者。
所有测试材料在成人和儿童受试组之间无显著差异。在每项测试中的不同列表之间观察到显著差异。在每项测试中去除一两个列表后,其余列表之间未观察到显著差异。虽然在给定测试中的不同列表之间方差相等,但儿童的方差大于成人,并且从单音节词到双音节词再到句子逐渐增加。
需要对先前通过CI模拟验证的测试列表进行一些调整,以为真正的CI使用者创建感知等效的列表,这表明测试材料应在目标人群中进行验证。不同测试材料的平均分数和方差差异表明,CI使用者在利用句子和双音节词中可用的上下文线索的能力方面可能存在差异。