The relationship between the intensity levels and speech production fluency in the delayed auditory feedback test in normally hearing listeners

  • Sayyed Hossein Hosseini Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Ali Akbar Tahaei Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Nariman Rahbar Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Delayed auditory feedback, non-organic hearing loss, speech fluency

Abstract

Background and Aim: Sometimes people with functional hearing loss are referred to audiology clinics. The delayed auditory feedback (DAF) is a test which assesses functional hearing loss qualitatively. This study aimed to quantify DAF and accordingly use it in more precise way.Methods: Fifteen normally hearing students participated in this experiment. Each person’s voice was presented to his or her ear once without and another time with fixed time delay when he or she was reading simple texts. The delayed voices were presented in different intensity levels. Stuttering, unusual lengthy, and non-fluent utterances indicated the perception and hearing of the delayed voices.Results: The length of the utterances increased and the fluency of the utterances decreased significantly for delayed compared to non-delay condition and for different intensity levels.Conclusion: These results showed that the levels of intensity of the delayed voices might influence the perception of the delay.

References

1. Lin J, Staecker H. Nonorganic hearing loss. Semin Neurol. 2006;26(3):321-30. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-945518
2. Schmidt CM, Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, Deuster D. [Nonorganic (functional) hearing loss in children]. HNO. 2013;61(2):136-41. German. doi: 10.1007/s00106-012-2504-3
3. Fredrick N. Martin. Nonorganic hearing loss. In: Katz J, Chasin M, English K, Hood LJ, Tillery KL, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 7th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2014. p. 617-29.
4. Mehta AK, Singh VK. Screening tests for nonorganic hearing loss. Med J Armed Forces India. 2000;56(1):79-81. doi: 10.1016/S0377-1237(17)30105-3
5. Durmaz A, Karahatay S, Satar B, Birkent H, Hidir Y. Efficiency of Stenger test in confirming profound, unilateral pseudohypacusis. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123(8):840-4. doi: 10.1017/S0022215109004769
6. Psarommatis I, Kontorinis G, Kontrogiannis A, Douniadakis D, Tsakanikos M. Pseudohypacusis: the most frequent etiology of sudden hearing loss in children. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(12):1857-61. doi: 10.1007/s00405-009-0983-y
7. Baiduc RR, Poling GL, Hong O, Dhar S. Clinical measures of auditory function: the cochlea and beyond. Dis Mon. 2013;59(4):147-56. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2013.01.005
8. Takaso H, Eisner F, Wise RJ, Scott SK. The effect of delayed auditory feedback on activity in the temporal lobe while speaking: a positron emission tomography study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(2):226-36. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0009)
9. Tiffany WR, Hanley CN. Delayed speech feedback as a test for auditory malingering. Science. 1952;115(2977):59-60. doi: 10.1126/science.115.2977.59
10. Chon H, Kraft SJ, Zhang J, Loucks T, Ambrose NG. Individual variability in delayed auditory feedback effects on speech fluency and rate in normally fluent adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(2):489-504. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0303)
11. Zheng ZZ, Vicente-Grabovetsky A, MacDonald EN, Munhall KG, Cusack R, Johnsrude IS. Multivoxel patterns reveal functionally differentiated networks underlying auditory feedback processing of speech. J Neurosci. 2013;33(10):4339-48. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6319-11.2013
12. Stuart A, Kalinowski J. Effect of delayed auditory feedback, speech rate, and sex on speech production. Percept Mot Skills. 2015;120(3):747-65. doi: 10.2466/23.25.PMS.120v17x2
13. Daliri A, Max L. Modulation of auditory processing during speech movement planning is limited in adults who stutter. Brain Lang. 2015;143:59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.002
14. Rönnberg J, Hygge S, Keidser G, Rudner M. The effect of functional hearing loss and age on long- and short-term visuospatial memory: evidence from the UK biobank resource. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014;6:326. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00326
15. Maas E, Mailend ML, Guenther FH. Feedforward and feedback control in apraxia of speech: effects of noise masking on vowel production. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(2):185-200. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0300
16. Kaspar K, Rübeling H. Rhythmic versus phonemic interference in delayed auditory feedback. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(3):932-43. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0109)
17. Chesters J, Baghai-Ravary L, Möttönen R. The effects of delayed auditory and visual feedback on speech production. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;137(2):873-83. doi: 10.1121/1.4906266
Published
2018-07-11
How to Cite
1.
Hosseini SH, Tahaei AA, Rahbar N. The relationship between the intensity levels and speech production fluency in the delayed auditory feedback test in normally hearing listeners. AVR. 27(3):126-30.
Section
Research Article(s)