Beattie R C, Svihovec D A, Edgerton B J
J Am Audiol Soc. 1978 May-Jun;3(6):267-72.
Several speech audiometric measurements were made on 212 ears with mild sensorineural hearing loss. An 8-dB difference between speech detection and spondee thresholds was observed, which is the same relationship that has been found in normal ears. No significant differences in speech discrimination scores (SDS's) were observed when NU-6 was administered via monitored live voice (MLV) and the Auditec recordings. Although our data support the use of MLV testing, verification with a standardized recording should be considered when unusually poor SDS's are obtained. Half-list and full-list SDS's were analyzed for both taped and MLV presentation modes. This analysis showed that both the MLV and taped stimuli exhibited very similar variability and that about 96% of the half-list scores were within 6% of the full-list scores. The clinician should be cautious, however, because 4% of the ears had half-list/full-list discrepancies ranging from 8 to 14% and differences as large as 28% have been reported by Raffin and Thornton (1977). Furthermore, variability between half-list and full-list SDS's varies as a function of intelligibility impairment, being least for scores approaching the extremes of 0 and 100% and greatest for scores in the 30 to 70% range. Finally, our data suggest that half-list testing can be an effective screening procedure to determine it full-list testing is advisable.
对212只患有轻度感音神经性听力损失的耳朵进行了多项言语听力测量。观察到言语察觉阈和扬扬格词阈之间存在8分贝的差异,这与在正常耳朵中发现的关系相同。当通过监听实时语音(MLV)和Auditec录音播放NU-6时,未观察到言语识别得分(SDS)有显著差异。虽然我们的数据支持使用MLV测试,但当获得异常低的SDS时,应考虑用标准化录音进行验证。对磁带和MLV呈现模式下的半列表和全列表SDS进行了分析。该分析表明,MLV和磁带刺激表现出非常相似的变异性,并且约96%的半列表得分在全列表得分的6%以内。然而,临床医生应谨慎,因为4%的耳朵半列表/全列表差异在8%至14%之间,并且Raffin和Thornton(1977年)报告的差异高达28%。此外,半列表和全列表SDS之间的变异性随可懂度损伤而变化,在接近0%和100%极端值的得分中最小,在30%至70%范围内的得分中最大。最后,我们的数据表明,半列表测试可以作为一种有效的筛查程序,以确定是否建议进行全列表测试。