MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2410561165 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000224

The Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test for Children

2015· article· en· W2410561165 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marte Myhrum, Ole Tvete, Mariann Gjervik Heldahl, Inger Moen, Sigfrid D. Soli

Notice bibliographique

RevueEar and Hearing · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAudiologyQUIETNoise (video)NorwegianSpeech perceptionSentenceActive listeningPsychologyTest (biology)Speech recognitionMedicinePerceptionCommunicationComputer scienceLinguisticsNatural language processing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Brief Objectives: The aims of this study were to create 12 ten-sentence lists for the Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test for children, and to use these lists to collect speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in quiet and in noise to assess speech perception in normal hearing children 5 to 13 years of age, to establish developmental trends, and to compare the results with those of adults. Data were collected in an anechoic chamber and in an audiometric test room, and the effect of slight room reverberation was estimated. Design: The Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test for children was formed from a subset of the adult sentences. Selected sentences were repeatable by 5- and 6-year-old children in quiet listening conditions. Twelve sentence lists were created based on the sentences’ phoneme distributions. Six-year-olds were tested with these lists to determine list equivalence. Slopes of performance intensity (PI) functions relating mean word scores and signal to noise ratios (SNRs) were estimated for a group of 7-year-olds and adults. HINT normative data were collected for 219 adults and children 5 to 13 years of age in anechoic and audiometric test rooms, using noise levels 55, 60, or 65 dBA. Target sentences always originated from the front; whereas, the noise was presented either from the front, noise front (NF), from the right, noise right (NR) or from the left, noise left (NL). The NR and NL scores were averaged to yield a noise side (NS) score. All 219 subjects were tested in the NF condition, and 95 in the NR and NL conditions. Retest of the NF at the end of the test session was done for 53 subjects. Longitudinal data were collected by testing 9 children as 6, 8, and 13 years old. Results: NF and NS group means for adults were −3.7 and −11.8 dB SNR, respectively. Group means for 13-year-olds were −3.3 and −9.7, and for the 6-year-olds group means were −0.3 and −5.7 dB SNR, as measured in an anechoic chamber. NF SRTs measured in an audiometric test room were 0.7 to 1.5 higher (poorer) than in the anechoic chamber. Developmental trends were comparable in both rooms. PI slopes were 8.0% dB SNR for the 7-year-olds and 10.1% for the adults. NF SRTs in the anechoic chamber improved by 0.7 dB per year over an age range of 5 to 10 years. Using a PI slope 8 to 10% per dB, the estimated increase in percent intelligibility was 4 to 7% per year. Adult SRTs were about 3 dB lower than those for 6-year-olds, corresponding to 25 to 30% better intelligibility for adults. Conclusions: Developmental trends in HINT performance for Norwegian children with normal hearing are similar to those seen in other languages, including American English and Canadian French. SRTs approach adult normative values by the age of 13; however, the benefits of spatial separation of the speech and noise sources are less than those seen for adults. The Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test (NHINT) for children was developed, and NHINT Speech Reception Thresholds (SRTs) were collected for 219 normal-hearing children and adults. The sentences were presented from the front, whereas the noise was presented from the front (NF) or the side (NS) of the listener. There was a developmental trend in NF versus age between ages 5.5 to 10 years and in NS between ages 5.5 to 13 years. The NF and NS group means for the 6-year-olds were -0.3 and -5.7 dB compared to -3.3 and -9.7 dB for 13-year-olds and -3.7 and -11.8 dB for adults.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,216
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,179

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations30
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEar and HearingMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207