Haggard M P, Lindblad A C, Foster J R
Audiology. 1986;25(4-5):277-98. doi: 10.3109/00206098609078393.
Audiometric prediction of word identification scores has typically used one fixed presentation level for all subjects in the sample, with presentation in quiet and a wide range of hearing impairment among the listeners; under such conditions it is hardly surprising that moderate to good predictions are found. To see if prediction is possible under clinically relevant conditions, that is, on a homogeneous clinical sample of new hearing-aid candidates and to listener-adjusted levels, as would obtain in use of a hearing aid. In addition to audiometric variables, we employed a clinical approximation to the psychoacoustic tuning curve. We tested speech identification (FAAF) performance both with a 'rising'(+9 dB/octave) and with a 'flat' frequency response. Prediction of performance in the 'flat' condition was only good when a full set of audiometric frequencies entered the multiple-regression formula, each with its own weighting. Audiometric prediction for the 'rising' frequency response was particularly poor. Thus, the fairly good predictability from thresholds found traditionally for word identification scores or other disability measures appears to be a special case, depending partly on the wide range of hearing levels employed. Within our clinical sample the predictive power of formulae based on the mean of all thresholds or of mid-frequency thresholds alone (as used in compensation schemes) or on a priori combinations of thresholds (such as slopes) was generally poor. However, a three-parameter model taking account separately of low (0.25 kHz) and high-frequency (greater than 2.0 kHz) thresholds was effective. This and other audiometric descriptions were valuably supplemented by a psychoacoustic measure of frequency resolution at 2 kHz. In particular, such supplementation here allowed a satisfactory level of prediction to be achieved for speech heard with a +9 dB/octave frequency response, which the audiogram alone did not. The limitations of the prediction paradigm are discussed and several conceptual and statistical problems not previously emphasised in the audiological literature are illustrated in relation to the data.
听力计对言语识别分数的预测通常在样本中的所有受试者都采用一个固定的呈现水平，在安静环境中呈现，且听众之间存在广泛的听力损伤；在这种情况下，发现中度到良好的预测结果也就不足为奇了。为了探究在临床相关条件下，即在新的助听器候选者的同质临床样本上，以及在听力计调整到听众适应水平的情况下（如同使用助听器时那样）是否能够进行预测。除了听力计变量外，我们还采用了心理声学调谐曲线的临床近似值。我们测试了言语识别（FAAF）性能，包括“上升”（+9 dB/倍频程）和“平坦”频率响应。只有当全套听力计频率进入多元回归公式且每个频率都有其自身权重时，“平坦”条件下的性能预测才良好。“上升”频率响应的听力计预测特别差。因此，传统上从阈值得出的对言语识别分数或其他残疾测量的相当好的可预测性似乎是一种特殊情况，部分取决于所采用的广泛听力水平范围。在我们的临床样本中，基于所有阈值的平均值、仅基于中频阈值（如在补偿方案中使用）或基于阈值的先验组合（如斜率）的公式的预测能力通常较差。然而，一个分别考虑低频（0.25 kHz）和高频（大于2.0 kHz）阈值的三参数模型是有效的。通过在2 kHz处进行频率分辨率的心理声学测量，对这一及其他听力计描述进行了有价值的补充。特别是，在这里这种补充使得对于具有+9 dB/倍频程频率响应的言语能够实现令人满意的预测水平，而仅靠听力图是无法做到的。讨论了预测范式的局限性，并结合数据说明了听力学文献中以前未强调的几个概念和统计问题。
