Progress Toward Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Intelligibility: A Crowdsourced Perceptual Experiment.

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00354
Kaila L Stipancic, Frits van Brenk, Mengyang Qiu, Kris Tjaden
{"title":"Progress Toward Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Intelligibility: A Crowdsourced Perceptual Experiment.","authors":"Kaila L Stipancic, Frits van Brenk, Mengyang Qiu, Kris Tjaden","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of the current study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of sentence intelligibility in control speakers and in speakers with dysarthria due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Sixteen control speakers, 16 speakers with MS, and 16 speakers with PD were audio-recorded reading aloud sentences in habitual, clear, fast, loud, and slow speaking conditions. Two hundred forty nonexpert crowdsourced listeners heard paired conditions of the same sentence content from a speaker and indicated if one condition was more understandable than another. Listeners then used the Global Ratings of Change (GROC) Scale to indicate <i>how much more understandable</i> that condition was than the other. Listener ratings were compared with objective intelligibility scores obtained previously via orthographic transcriptions from nonexpert listeners. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and average magnitude of intelligibility difference per level of the GROC Scale were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of potential cutoff scores in intelligibility for establishing thresholds of important change.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MCIDs derived from the ROC curves were invalid. However, the average magnitude of intelligibility difference derived valid and useful thresholds. The MCID of intelligibility was determined to be about 7% for a small amount of difference and about 15% for a large amount of difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This work demonstrates the feasibility of the novel experimental paradigm for collecting crowdsourced perceptual data to estimate MCIDs. Results provide empirical evidence that clinical tools for the perception of intelligibility by nonexpert listeners could consist of three categories, which emerged from the data (\"no difference,\" \"a little bit of difference,\" \"a lot of difference\"). The current work is a critical step toward development of a universal language with which to evaluate changes in intelligibility as a result of neurological injury, disease progression, and speech-language therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00354","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of sentence intelligibility in control speakers and in speakers with dysarthria due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD).

Method: Sixteen control speakers, 16 speakers with MS, and 16 speakers with PD were audio-recorded reading aloud sentences in habitual, clear, fast, loud, and slow speaking conditions. Two hundred forty nonexpert crowdsourced listeners heard paired conditions of the same sentence content from a speaker and indicated if one condition was more understandable than another. Listeners then used the Global Ratings of Change (GROC) Scale to indicate how much more understandable that condition was than the other. Listener ratings were compared with objective intelligibility scores obtained previously via orthographic transcriptions from nonexpert listeners. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and average magnitude of intelligibility difference per level of the GROC Scale were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of potential cutoff scores in intelligibility for establishing thresholds of important change.

Results: MCIDs derived from the ROC curves were invalid. However, the average magnitude of intelligibility difference derived valid and useful thresholds. The MCID of intelligibility was determined to be about 7% for a small amount of difference and about 15% for a large amount of difference.

Conclusions: This work demonstrates the feasibility of the novel experimental paradigm for collecting crowdsourced perceptual data to estimate MCIDs. Results provide empirical evidence that clinical tools for the perception of intelligibility by nonexpert listeners could consist of three categories, which emerged from the data ("no difference," "a little bit of difference," "a lot of difference"). The current work is a critical step toward development of a universal language with which to evaluate changes in intelligibility as a result of neurological injury, disease progression, and speech-language therapy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估算最小临床重要差异的进展:众包感知实验。
目的:本研究的目的是估算对照组说话者和因多发性硬化(MS)和帕金森病(PD)导致构音障碍的说话者的句子可懂度的最小临床重要差异(MCID):方法:对 16 名对照组说话者、16 名多发性硬化症说话者和 16 名帕金森病说话者在习惯、清晰、快速、响亮和缓慢说话条件下朗读句子的情况进行录音。240 名非专家众包听者聆听了演讲者朗读相同句子内容的配对条件,并指出一种条件是否比另一种条件更容易理解。然后,听者使用全球变化评分(GROC)量表来表示该条件比另一条件更容易理解。听者的评分与之前通过非专业听者的正字法转录获得的客观可懂度评分进行了比较。对接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线和 GROC 量表每级可懂度差异的平均幅度进行了评估,以确定可懂度的敏感性、特异性和准确性,从而确定重要变化的阈值:从 ROC 曲线得出的 MCID 无效。然而,根据智能度差异的平均值得出的阈值是有效和有用的。经确定,差异较小的理解度 MCID 约为 7%,差异较大的理解度 MCID 约为 15%:这项工作证明了收集众包感知数据以估算MCID的新型实验范例的可行性。结果提供了经验证据,证明非专业听者感知可懂度的临床工具可以由三个类别组成,这三个类别是从数据中产生的("无差异"、"有一点差异"、"有很大差异")。目前的工作是朝着开发一种通用语言迈出的关键一步,这种语言可用于评估因神经损伤、疾病进展和言语治疗而导致的可懂度变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
19.20%
发文量
538
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.
期刊最新文献
Accurately Identifying Language Disorder in School-Age Children Using Dynamic Assessment of Narrative Language. Microbiome and Communication Disorders: A Tutorial for Clinicians. Race Identification in American English. A Methodological Review of Stimuli Used for Classroom Speech-in-Noise Tests. Cochlear Implant Sound Quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1