CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022263
CoDAS
Original Article

Development and evaluation of Tamil Matrix Sentence Test Performance in young adults

Ramya Vaidyanath; Neethi Jesudass; Thaaranya Krishnamoorthy Achari

Downloads: 0
Views: 297

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of the study was to develop the Tamil Matrix Sentence Test (TMST) and evaluate the performance of a group of young adults with normal hearing on the developed test. The developed sentences were also administered at varying intensities to obtain a performance-intensity (PI) function.

Methods: A base matrix with 10 sentences containing 5 words each with a total of 50 words was used to develop the TMST. The sentences had a fixed semantic sentence structure of Tamil language in the order of noun, number, adjective, object and verb. The developed test consisted of 30 lists with 10 sentences in each list. The performance of 60 young adults with normal hearing aged 18 to 24 years across the 30 lists were compared for list equivalency. To obtain the PI function the sentences were administered on 20 young adults with normal hearing at intensities from 20 dB HL to 100 dB HL in 10 dB increments. The performance across the intensity levels were compared.

Results: The 30 lists of TMST were found to be acoustically equivalent. However, few lists showed significant difference in the scores obtained on them compared to the rest of the lists. The PI function revealed a saturation in performance beyond 40 dB HL.

Conclusion: From the results it was construed that TMST can be used to evaluate the speech identification abilities of Tamil speaking listeners. Multiple lists offer the advantage of retesting without the influence of practice or listeners memorizing the test material.

Keywords

Matrix Sentence Test, Speech Identification Score, Performance-Intensity Function, Normative, Young Adults

Referencias

1 Egan JJ. Basic aspects of speech audiometry. Ear Nose Throat J. 1979;58(5):190-3. PMid:456296.

2 Silverman SR. Use of speech tests for evaluation of clinical procedures. Arch Otolaryngol. 1950;51(6):786-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1950.00700020812002. PMid:15419942.

3 Erber NP, Alencewicz CM. Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord. 1976;41(2):256-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4102.256. PMid:942611.

4 Carhart R. Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol. 1965;82(3):253-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1965.00760010255007. PMid:14327024.

5 Carhart R. Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol. 1951;40(1-2):62-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016485109138908. PMid:14914512.

6 Office of The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India [Internet]. New Delhi: Office of The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India; c2011 [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from: https://census india.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/42458/download/46089/C-16_25062018.pdf

7 Geetha C, Kumar KSS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci. 2014;4(1):18-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.17430/890267.

8 Jain C, Narne VK, Singh NK, Kumar P. [Internet]. Development of sentence test for speech recognition in Hindi. Mysuru: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2012 [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from: http://203.129.241.86:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4095

9 Tanniru K, Narne VK, Jain C, Konadath S, Singh NK, Sreenivas KJR, et al. Development of equally intelligible Telugu sentence-lists to test speech recognition in noise. Int J Audiol. 2017;56(9):664-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1307530. PMid:28395544.

10 Boominathan P [Internet]. Picture speech identification test for children in Tamil. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 1999 [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from: http://203.129.241.86:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4369

11 Samuel JD [Internet]. Development and standardization of phonetically balanced test materials in Tamil language. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 1976 [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from: http://203.129.241.86:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/303

12 Lehiste I, Peterson GE. The identification of filtered vowels. Phonetica. 1959;4(4):161-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000258001.

13 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(2):1085-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.408469. PMid:8132902.

14 Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;102(4):2412-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.419624. PMid:9348699.

15 Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord. 1952;17(3):321-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.1703.321. PMid:13053556.

16 Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;61(5):1337-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.381436. PMid:881487.

17 Silverman SR, Hirsh IJ. CX problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1955;64(4):1234-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348945506400424. PMid:13283495.

18 Houben R, Koopman J, Luts H, Wagener KC, van Wieringen A, Verschuure H, et al. Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol. 2014;53(10):760-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.920111. PMid:24959915.

19 Dietz A, Buschermöhle M, Aarnisalo AA, Vanhanen A, Hyyrynen T, Aaltonen O, et al. The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134(7):728-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2014.898185. PMid:24807850.

20 Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol. 1982;11(2):79-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01050398209076203. PMid:7178810.

21 Wardenga N, Batsoulis C, Wagener KC, Brand T, Lenarz T, Maier H. Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(Suppl 2):71-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1079929. PMid:26555195.

22 Zokoll MA, Fidan D, Türkyılmaz D, Hochmuth S, Ergenç İ, Sennaroğlu G, et al. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(Suppl 2):51-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1074735. PMid:26443486.

23 Gnanateja GN, Bhattarai B. Matrix sentence test - stimuli shuffler [Matlab File Exchange] [software]. USA: MathWorks; 2015 [cited 2023 Apr 19]. Available from: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/50836-matrix-sentence-test-stimuli-shuffler

24 Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE, Kaklin JE, Stevens SS. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope. 1947;57(1):57-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1288/00005537-194701000-00005. PMid:20287775.

25 von Hapsburg D, Champlin CA, Shetty SR. Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15(1):88-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15.1.9. PMid:15030104.

26 Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC, Kollmeier B, Del Rio M, Dauman R, et al. Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: a multi-center study. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(3):164-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.633568. PMid:22122354.
 


Submitted date:
05/11/2022

Accepted date:
19/04/2023

6657689ba953955a6018bb65 codas Articles

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections