Jain Saransh, Narne Vijaya Kumar, Valayutham Hema, Madan Thejaswini, Ravi Sunil Kumar, Jain Chandni
Department of Prevention of Communication Disorders, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru 570006, Karnataka, India.
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru 570006, Karnataka, India.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jun 26;15(13):1619. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15131619.
This study aimed to compare different scoring methods, such as phoneme, syllable, and word-based scoring, during word recognition in noise testing and their interaction with hearing loss severity. These scoring methods provided a structured framework for refining clinical audiological diagnosis by revealing underlying auditory processing at multiple linguistic levels. We highlight how scoring differences inform differential diagnosis and guide targeted audiological interventions. Pure tone audiometry and word-in-noise testing were conducted on 100 subjects with a wide range of hearing loss severity. Speech recognition was scored using phoneme, syllable, and word-based methods. All procedures were designed to reflect standard diagnostic protocols in clinical audiology. Discriminant function analysis examined how these scoring methods differentiate the degree of hearing loss. : Results showed that each method provides unique information about auditory processing. Phoneme-based scoring has pointed out basic auditory discrimination; syllable-based scoring can capture temporal and phonological processing, while word-based scoring reflects real-world listening conditions by incorporating contextual knowledge. These findings emphasize the diagnostic value of each scoring approach in clinical settings, aiding differential diagnosis and treatment planning. : This study showed the effect of different scoring methods on hearing loss differentiation concerning severity. We recommend the integration of phoneme-based scoring into standard diagnostic batteries to enhance early detection and personalize rehabilitation strategies. Future research must involve studies about integration with other speech perception tests and applicability across different clinical settings.
本研究旨在比较在噪声环境下单词识别测试中不同的评分方法,如基于音素、音节和单词的评分方法,以及它们与听力损失严重程度的相互作用。这些评分方法通过揭示多个语言层面的潜在听觉处理过程,为完善临床听力学诊断提供了一个结构化框架。我们强调评分差异如何为鉴别诊断提供信息并指导有针对性的听力学干预措施。对100名听力损失严重程度范围广泛的受试者进行了纯音听力测试和噪声环境下单词测试。使用基于音素、音节和单词的方法对言语识别进行评分。所有程序均设计为反映临床听力学中的标准诊断方案。判别函数分析研究了这些评分方法如何区分听力损失程度。结果表明,每种方法都提供了关于听觉处理的独特信息。基于音素的评分指出了基本的听觉辨别能力;基于音节的评分可以捕捉时间和音系处理,而基于单词的评分通过纳入语境知识反映现实世界的听力情况。这些发现强调了每种评分方法在临床环境中的诊断价值,有助于鉴别诊断和治疗计划制定。本研究显示了不同评分方法对听力损失严重程度鉴别诊断的影响。我们建议将基于音素的评分纳入标准诊断测试组合中,以加强早期检测并使康复策略个性化。未来的研究必须包括与其他言语感知测试整合以及在不同临床环境中的适用性的研究。