title: The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.
abstract: The speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) in an environment plays a vital role in speech communication for both normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. While hearing-assistance devices attempt to deliver as favorable an SNR as possible, there may be discrepancies between noticeable and meaningful improvements in SNR. Furthermore, it is not clear how much of an SNR improvement is necessary to induce intervention-seeking behavior. Here, we report on a series of experiments examining the just-meaningful difference (JMD) in SNR. All experiments used sentences in same-spectrum noise, with two intervals on each trial mimicking examples of pre- and post-benefit situations. Different groups of NH and HI adults were asked (a) to rate how much better or worse the change in SNR was in a number of paired examples, (b) if they would swap the worse for the better SNR (e.g., their current device for another), or (c) if they would be willing to go to the clinic for the given increase in SNR. The mean SNR JMD based on better or worse ratings (one arbitrary unit) was similar to the just-noticeable difference, approximately 3 dB. However, the mean SNR JMD for the more clinically relevant tasks-willingness (at least 50% of the time) to swap devices or attend the clinic for a change in SNR--was 6 to 8 dB regardless of hearing ability. This SNR JMD of the order of 6 dB provides a new benchmark, indicating the SNR improvement necessary to immediately motivate participants to seek intervention.
authors.affiliation: MRC/CSO Institute of Hearing Research-Scottish Section, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, UK david@ihr.gla.ac.uk.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: McShefferty
authors.affiliation: MRC/CSO Institute of Hearing Research-Scottish Section, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, UK.
authors.forename: William M
authors.initials: WM
authors.lastname: Whitmer
authors.affiliation: MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham, UK.
authors.forename: Michael A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Akeroyd
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000162:Acoustics; D000328:Adult; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001302:Audiometry, Speech; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D032882:Comprehension; D005260:Female; D006310:Hearing Aids; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise / Q000009:adverse effects*; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D019986:Persons with Hearing Disabilities / Q000523:psychology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D059629:Signal-To-Noise Ratio; D013065:Speech Intelligibility; D013067:Speech Perception; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: auditory perception; hearing impairment; just-meaningful difference; speech-to-noise ratio
references.citation: Br Med Bull. 1987 Oct;43(4):909-25
references.pmid: 3329932
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
references.pmid: 2691207
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1990 Dec;11(6):430-3
references.pmid: 2073976
references.citation: Br J Audiol. 1991 Feb;25(1):35-9
references.pmid: 2012902
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 1991 Apr;2(2):70-5
references.pmid: 1768876
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jan;47(1):81-7
references.pmid: 8283197
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Feb;95(2):1085-99
references.pmid: 8132902
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Dec;102(6):3754-61
references.pmid: 9407667
references.citation: Phys Ther. 1998 Nov;78(11):1186-96
references.pmid: 9806623
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Mar 1;31(5):578-82
references.pmid: 16508555
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2006 Jun;27(3):229-42
references.pmid: 16672792
references.citation: ASHA. 1981 Jul;23(7):493-500
references.pmid: 7052898
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2013 Apr;24(4):258-73; quiz 337-8
references.pmid: 23636208
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2013 Sep;34(5):523-34
references.pmid: 23426091
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2014 May-Jun;35(3):339-52
references.pmid: 24518429
references.citation: Trends Hear. 2014;18. pii: 2331216514537722. doi: 10.1177/2331216514537722
references.pmid: 24906905
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2014 Nov-Dec;35(6):623-32
references.pmid: 25083599
references.citation: Trends Hear. 2015;19. pii: 2331216515572316. doi: 10.1177/2331216515572316
references.pmid: 25681327
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2001 Sep;12(8):383-9; quiz 434
references.pmid: 11599872
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2001 Sep;12(8):423-32
references.pmid: 11599877
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2003 Dec;24(6):472-84
references.pmid: 14663347
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2004 Apr;25(2):117-26
references.pmid: 15064656
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 1968 Oct;52(5):343-7
references.pmid: 5681111
references.citation: Br J Audiol. 1981 Aug;15(3):213-6
references.pmid: 7296100
references.citation: Ear Hear. 1982 May-Jun;3(3):128-34
references.pmid: 7095321
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1984 Mar;27(1):32-48
references.pmid: 6717005
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Dec;120(6):4019-30
references.pmid: 17225428