Adnan Shehabi, Christopher J Plack, Garreth Prendergast, Kevin J Munro, Michael A Stone, Joseph Laycock, Arwa AlJasser, Hannah Guest
{"title":"在线阿拉伯语和英语数字噪声测试:测试语言和家庭测试的影响。","authors":"Adnan Shehabi, Christopher J Plack, Garreth Prendergast, Kevin J Munro, Michael A Stone, Joseph Laycock, Arwa AlJasser, Hannah Guest","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Digits-in-Noise (DIN) test is used widely in research and, increasingly, in remote hearing screening. The reported study aimed to provide basic evaluation data for browser-based DIN software, which allows remote testing without installation of an app. It investigated the effects of test language (Arabic vs. English) and test environment (lab vs. home) on DIN thresholds and test-retest reliability. It also examined the effects of test language on the correlations between DIN and audiometric thresholds.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty-two bilingual adults with normal hearing aged 18-35 years completed Arabic and English diotic DIN tests (two sessions in the lab and two sessions at home via the web). Effects of language and environment on DIN thresholds were assessed via paired <i>t</i> tests, while intraclass and Pearson's/Spearman's correlation coefficients quantified test-retest reliability and relations to audiometric thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DIN thresholds were 0.74 dB higher (worse) for Arabic than English stimuli. Thresholds were 0.52 dB lower in the lab than at home, but the effect was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Intraclass and Pearson's correlation coefficients were too low for meaningful analysis due to the use of a normal-hearing sample with low between-subject variability in DIN and audiometric thresholds. However, exploratory analysis showed that absolute test-retest differences were low (< 1.2 dB, on average) for both languages and both test environments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Arabic DIN thresholds were a little higher than English thresholds for the same listeners. Employing home-based rather than lab-based testing may slightly elevate DIN thresholds, but the effect was marginal. Nonetheless, both factors should be considered when interpreting DIN data. Test-retest differences were low for both languages and environments. To support hearing screening, subsequent research in audiometrically diverse listeners is required, testing the reliability of DIN thresholds and relations to hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"388-398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Arabic and English Digits-in-Noise Tests: Effects of Test Language and At-Home Testing.\",\"authors\":\"Adnan Shehabi, Christopher J Plack, Garreth Prendergast, Kevin J Munro, Michael A Stone, Joseph Laycock, Arwa AlJasser, Hannah Guest\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Digits-in-Noise (DIN) test is used widely in research and, increasingly, in remote hearing screening. The reported study aimed to provide basic evaluation data for browser-based DIN software, which allows remote testing without installation of an app. It investigated the effects of test language (Arabic vs. English) and test environment (lab vs. home) on DIN thresholds and test-retest reliability. It also examined the effects of test language on the correlations between DIN and audiometric thresholds.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty-two bilingual adults with normal hearing aged 18-35 years completed Arabic and English diotic DIN tests (two sessions in the lab and two sessions at home via the web). Effects of language and environment on DIN thresholds were assessed via paired <i>t</i> tests, while intraclass and Pearson's/Spearman's correlation coefficients quantified test-retest reliability and relations to audiometric thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DIN thresholds were 0.74 dB higher (worse) for Arabic than English stimuli. Thresholds were 0.52 dB lower in the lab than at home, but the effect was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Intraclass and Pearson's correlation coefficients were too low for meaningful analysis due to the use of a normal-hearing sample with low between-subject variability in DIN and audiometric thresholds. However, exploratory analysis showed that absolute test-retest differences were low (< 1.2 dB, on average) for both languages and both test environments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Arabic DIN thresholds were a little higher than English thresholds for the same listeners. Employing home-based rather than lab-based testing may slightly elevate DIN thresholds, but the effect was marginal. Nonetheless, both factors should be considered when interpreting DIN data. Test-retest differences were low for both languages and environments. To support hearing screening, subsequent research in audiometrically diverse listeners is required, testing the reliability of DIN thresholds and relations to hearing loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"388-398\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"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-24-00085\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:噪声中数字(DIN)测试被广泛用于研究,并越来越多地用于远程听力筛查。本研究旨在为基于浏览器的 DIN 软件提供基本评估数据,该软件无需安装应用程序即可进行远程测试。研究调查了测试语言(阿拉伯语与英语)和测试环境(实验室与家庭)对 DIN 阈值和重复测试可靠性的影响。研究还考察了测试语言对 DIN 与听阈之间相关性的影响:52名听力正常、年龄在18-35岁之间的双语成人完成了阿拉伯语和英语的DIN测试(两次在实验室进行,两次在家中通过网络进行)。语言和环境对 DIN阈值的影响通过配对 t 检验进行评估,而类内相关系数和皮尔逊/斯皮尔曼相关系数则量化了测试-重复测试的可靠性以及与听力阈值的关系:阿拉伯语刺激的 DIN 阈值比英语刺激的 DIN 阈值高(差)0.74 dB。实验室阈值比家中阈值低 0.52 分贝,但经多重比较校正后,影响并不显著。由于使用的是听力正常的样本,DIN 和听阈的受试者间变异性较低,因此类内相关系数和皮尔逊相关系数太低,无法进行有意义的分析。然而,探索性分析表明,两种语言和两种测试环境的测试-复测绝对差异都很低(平均< 1.2 dB):结论:对于相同的听者,阿拉伯语的 DIN阈值略高于英语阈值。采用家庭测试而非实验室测试可能会略微提高 DIN 门限,但影响不大。不过,在解释 DIN 数据时应考虑这两个因素。两种语言和环境的测试重复差异都很低。为了支持听力筛查,需要对不同听力水平的听者进行后续研究,测试 DIN 阈值的可靠性以及与听力损失的关系。
Online Arabic and English Digits-in-Noise Tests: Effects of Test Language and At-Home Testing.
Purpose: The Digits-in-Noise (DIN) test is used widely in research and, increasingly, in remote hearing screening. The reported study aimed to provide basic evaluation data for browser-based DIN software, which allows remote testing without installation of an app. It investigated the effects of test language (Arabic vs. English) and test environment (lab vs. home) on DIN thresholds and test-retest reliability. It also examined the effects of test language on the correlations between DIN and audiometric thresholds.
Method: Fifty-two bilingual adults with normal hearing aged 18-35 years completed Arabic and English diotic DIN tests (two sessions in the lab and two sessions at home via the web). Effects of language and environment on DIN thresholds were assessed via paired t tests, while intraclass and Pearson's/Spearman's correlation coefficients quantified test-retest reliability and relations to audiometric thresholds.
Results: DIN thresholds were 0.74 dB higher (worse) for Arabic than English stimuli. Thresholds were 0.52 dB lower in the lab than at home, but the effect was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Intraclass and Pearson's correlation coefficients were too low for meaningful analysis due to the use of a normal-hearing sample with low between-subject variability in DIN and audiometric thresholds. However, exploratory analysis showed that absolute test-retest differences were low (< 1.2 dB, on average) for both languages and both test environments.
Conclusions: Arabic DIN thresholds were a little higher than English thresholds for the same listeners. Employing home-based rather than lab-based testing may slightly elevate DIN thresholds, but the effect was marginal. Nonetheless, both factors should be considered when interpreting DIN data. Test-retest differences were low for both languages and environments. To support hearing screening, subsequent research in audiometrically diverse listeners is required, testing the reliability of DIN thresholds and relations to hearing loss.
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.