A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise Test (WIN).
BACKGROUND
The Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) is a word-recognition instrument that presents the 200 Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) words binaurally at 50 dB HL in a multitalker babble at a 9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) (Cord et al, 1992). The SPRINT was developed by and used by the Army as a more valid predictor of communication abilities (than pure-tone thresholds or word-recognition in quiet) for issues involving fitness for duty from a hearing perspective of Army personnel. The Words-in-Noise test (WIN) is a slightly different word-recognition task in a fixed level multitalker babble with 10 NU-6 words presented at each of 7 S/N from 24 to 0 dB S/N in 4 dB decrements (Wilson, 2003; Wilson and McArdle, 2007). For the two instruments, both the babble and the speakers of the words are different. The SPRINT uses all 200 NU-6 words, whereas the WIN uses a maximum of 70 words.


OBJECTIVE
The purpose was to compare recognition performances by 24 young listeners with normal hearing and 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing on the SPRINT and WIN protocols.


METHODS
A quasi-experimental, mixed model design was used.


METHODS
The 24 young listeners with normal hearing (19 to 29 years, mean = 23.3 years) were from the local university and had normal hearing (< or = 20 dB HL; American National Standards Institute, 2004) at the 250-8000 Hz octave intervals. The 48 older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (60 to 82 years, mean = 69.9 years) had the following inclusion criteria: (1) a threshold at 500 Hz between 15 and 30 dB HL, (2) a threshold at 1000 Hz between 20 and 40 dB HL, (3) a three-frequency puretone average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) of < or = 40 dB HL, (4) word-recognition scores in quiet > or = 40%, and (5) no history of middle ear or retrocochlear pathology as determined by an audiologic evaluation.


METHODS
The speech materials were presented bilaterally in the following order: (1) the SPRINT at 50 dB HL, (2) two half lists of NU-6 words in quiet at 60 dB HL and 80 dB HL, and (3) the two 35-word lists of the WIN materials with the multitalker babble fixed at 60 dB HL. Data collection occurred during a 40-60 minute session. Recognition performances on each stimulus word were analyzed.


RESULTS
The listeners with normal hearing obtained 92.5% correct on the SPRINT with a 50% point on the WIN of 2.7 dB S/N. The listeners with hearing loss obtained 65.3% correct on the SPRINT and a WIN 50% point at 12.0 dB S/N. The SPRINT and WIN were significantly correlated (r = -0.81, p < .01), indicating that the SPRINT had good concurrent validity. The high-frequency, pure-tone average (1000, 2000, 4000 Hz) had higher correlations with the SPRINT, WIN, and NU-6 in quiet than did the traditional three-frequency pure-tone average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz).


CONCLUSIONS
Graphically and numerically the SPRINT and WIN were highly related, which is indicative of good concurrent validity of the SPRINT.
Wilson
Richard H
RH
VA Medical Center, Audiology (126), Mountain Home, TN 37684, USA. RICHARD.WILSON2@VA.GOV
Cates
Wendy B
WB
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001288:Attention; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D011304:Presbycusis / Q000175:diagnosis*; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012931:Social Environment; D013069:Speech Reception Threshold Test / Q000379:methods*; D055815:Young Adult