Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Diagnostic Precision of Open-Set Versus Closed-Set Word Recognition Testing. |
| Authors: |
Yu, Tzu-Ling J.1 yuxxx583@umn.edu, Schlauch, Robert S.1 |
| Source: |
Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Jun2019, Vol. 62 Issue 6, p2035-2047. 13p. 4 Charts, 4 Graphs. |
| Subject Terms: |
*Speech perception, *Computer simulation, Word recognition ability testing, Psychometrics, Confidence intervals, Research funding, Task performance, Descriptive statistics |
| Geographic Terms: |
Minnesota |
| Abstract: |
Purpose: The aim of the study was to examine the precision of forced-choice (closed-set) and open-ended (open-set) word recognition (WR) tasks for identifying a change in hearing. Method: WR performance for closed-set (4 and 6 choices) and open-set tasks was obtained from 70 listeners with normal hearing. Speech recognition was degraded by presenting monosyllabic words in noise (-8, -4, 0, and 4 signal-to-noise ratios) or processed by a sine wave vocoder (2, 4, 6, and 8 channels). Results: The 2 degraded speech understanding conditions yielded similarly shaped, monotonically increasing psychometric functions with the closed-set tasks having shallower slopes and higher scores than the open-set task for the same listening condition. Fitted psychometric functions to the average data were the input to a computer simulation conducted to assess the ability of each task to identify a change in hearing. Individual data were also analyzed using 95% confidence intervals for significant changes in scores for words and phonemes. These analyses found the following for the most to least efficient condition: open-set (phoneme), open-set (word), closed-set (6 choices), and closed-set (4 choices). Conclusions: Closed-set WR testing has distinct advantages for implementation, but its poorer precision for identifying a change than open-set WR testing must be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Education Research Complete |
