PRAKTYKA KLINICZNA
Ocena zdolności do rozpoznawania zniekształconych bodźców słownych (podstawy teoretyczne, dostępne testy)
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
Instytut Fizjologii i Patologii Słuchu, Światowe Centrum Słuchu, Warszawa/Kajetany
 
 
Data publikacji: 27-10-2020
 
 
Autor do korespondencji
Monika Lewandowska   

Światowe Centrum Słuchu, Naukowe Centrum Obrazowania Biomedycznego, ul. Mokra 17, Kajetany, 05-830 Nadarzyn, e-mail: m.lewandowska@ifps.org.pl
 
 
Now Audiofonol 2016;5(4):59-64
 
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
STRESZCZENIE
Zdolność do rozpoznawania zniekształconych bodźców słownych jest ważnym aspektem przetwarzania informacji słuchowej. Testy sprawdzające tę umiejętność powinny wchodzić w skład baterii przesiewowych czułych na wykrywanie ośrodkowych zaburzeń przetwarzania słuchowego (ang. Auditory Processing Disorder, APD). W prezentowanej pracy przedstawiono podstawy teoretyczne oraz wybrane testy do oceny zdolności do rozpoznawania mowy zniekształconej w wyniku filtracji częstotliwościowej, kompresji czasowej lub mowy prezentowanej w obecności sygnału zakłócającego.
 
REFERENCJE (36)
1.
ASHA. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders. Working Group on Auditory Processing Disorders, 2005, http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2....
 
2.
AAA 2010. American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder, 2010, 1–51.
 
3.
Bellis TJ, Bellis JD. Chapter 30 – Central auditory processing disorders in children and adults. Handb Clin Neurol, 2015; 129: 537–56.
 
4.
Palmer AR, Summerfield AQ. Microelectrode and neuroimaging studies of central auditory function. Br. Med. Bull., 2002; 63(1): 95–105.
 
5.
Bishop CW, Miller LM: A multisensory cortical network for understanding speech in noise. J Cogn Neurosci, 2009; 21(9): 1790–804.
 
6.
Wilson RH, Burks C. Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2005; 42(6): 839–52.
 
7.
Wilson RH, Carnell CS, Cleghorn AL. The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18(6): 522–29.
 
8.
Wilson RH, McArdle R. Speech-in-noise measures: Variable versus fixed speech and noise levels. Int J Audiol, 2012; 51(9): 708–12.
 
9.
Wilson RH, Cates WB. A comparison of Two Word-Recognition Tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN). J Am Acad Audiol, 2008; 19(7): 548–56.
 
10.
Wilson RH, Farmer NM, Gandhi A, Shelburne E, Weaver J. Normative data for the Words-in-Noise Test for 6-to 12-year-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2010; 53(5): 1111–21.
 
11.
Wilson RH, McArdle R. Intra- and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18(10): 813–25.
 
12.
Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Word recognition in multitalker babble measured with two psychophysical methods. J Am Acad Audiol, 2005; 16(8): 622–30.
 
13.
Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2003; 40(4): 321–27.
 
14.
Wilson RH. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: Comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol, 2011; 22(7): 405–23.
 
15.
Keith RW. Development and standardization of SCAN-A: test of auditory processing disorders in adolescents and adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 1995; 6: 286.
 
16.
Keith RW. Development and standardization of SCAN-C test for auditory processing disorders in children. J Am Acad Audiol, 2000; 11(8): 438–45.
 
17.
Dawes P, Bishop DV. The SCAN-C in testing for auditory processing disorder in a sample of British children. Int J Audiol, 2007; 46(12): 780–86.
 
18.
Fuente A, McPherson B. Auditory processing tests for Spanish-speaking adults: An initial study: Pruebas de percepción auditiva para adultos hablantes del español: un estudio inicial. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45(11): 645–59.
 
19.
Iliadou V, Fourakis M, V akalos A, Hawks JW, Kaprinis G. Bi-syllabic, Modern Greek word lists for use in word recognition tests: Listas de palabras bisilábicas del Griego moderno para uso en pruebas de discriminación. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45(2): 74–82.
 
20.
Kedmy M, Topper T, Cohen-Mimran R, Banai K. The development of speech-in-noise perception in Hebrew-speaking school-age children. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol, 2013; 24(3): 185–89.
 
21.
Stollman MH, van Velzen EC, Simkens HM, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Development of auditory processing in 6-12-year-old children: a longitudinal study. Int J Audiol, 2004; 43(1): 34–44.
 
22.
Neijenhuis K, Snik A, Priester G, van Kordenoordt S, van den Broek P. „Age effects and normative data on a Dutch test battery for auditory processing disorders: Efectos de la edad y datos normativos de una bateria de pruebas holandesa para evaluar problemas de procesamiento auditivo. Int J Audiol, 2002; 41(6): 334–46.
 
23.
Schow RL, Seikel JA, Brockett JE, Whitaker MM. Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment (MAPA). Test Manual. Idaho State University, 2007; 1–56.
 
24.
Nielsen JB, Dau T. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test. Int J Audiol, 2009; 48(10): 729–41.
 
25.
Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P. The Listening in Spatialized Noise test: Normative data for children: La prueba de audición en ruido espacializado: datos normativos para niños. Int J Audiol, 2006; 45(2): 99–108.
 
26.
Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P. Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(1): 30–42.
 
27.
Bornstein SP, Wilson RH, Cambron NK. Low-and high-pass filtered Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 for monaural and binaural evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol, 1994; 5: 259.
 
28.
Avilala VKY, Prabhu P, Barman A. The effect of filtered speech on speech identification scores of young normal hearing adults. J India Inst Speech Hear, 2010; 29(1).
 
29.
Keith RW. Development and standardization of SCAN-A: test of auditory processing disorders in adolescents and adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 1995; 6: 286–86.
 
30.
Neijenhuis K, Snik A, Priester G, van Kordenoordt S, van den Broek P. Age effects and normative data on a Dutch test battery for auditory processing disorders: Efectos de la edad y datos normativos de una bateria de pruebas holandesa para evaluar problemas de procesamiento auditivo. Int J Audiol, 2002; 41(6): 334–46.
 
31.
Arnott W, Goli T, Bradley A, Smith A, Wilson W. The Filtered Words Test and the influence of lexicality. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2014; 57(5): 1722.
 
32.
Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 2002; 111(1): 401.
 
33.
Jafari Z, Omidvar S, Jafarloo F. Effects of ageing on speed and temporal resolution of speech stimuli in older adults. Med J Islam Repub Iran, 2013; 27(4): 195–203.
 
34.
Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Sources of age-related recognition difficulty for time-compressed speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2001; 44(4): 709–19.
 
35.
Rabelo CM, Schochat E. Time-compressed speech test in Brazilian Portuguese. Clinics, 2007; 62(3): 261–72.
 
36.
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.
 
Scroll to top