Research Article

Effect of Lexical Neighbourhood on Word Recognition Test: A Study in Turkish


Background and Aim: Word Recognition Test (WRT) is a widely used component of routine audiology battery. Several studies were conducted on the effect of words in word recognition lists and whether word difficulty level had an effect in word recalling process of patients. This study aims to compare the scores of patients to the designed Başkent WRT and commonly used Hacettepe WRT by focusing on the lexical neighbourhood.
Methods: Study carried out in an Ear Nose and Throat Department of a private university hospital between June and August 2021. 34 persons with sensorineural hearing loss and 34 persons without hearing loss was participated in the study. Designed WRT and widely used common WRT were presented to the participants.
Results: Results showed that common WRT included words with more lexical neighbours and sensorineural hearing loss group scores were significantly lower compared to designed WRT.
Conclusion: Persons with sensorineural hearing loss have a tendency to misunderstand presented words in WRT as they may trigger other words and misguide the patient.

[1] Trimmis N, Papadeas E, Papadas T, Naxakis S, Papathanasopoulos P, Goumas P. Speech Audiometry: The Development of Modern Greek Word Lists for Suprathreshold WordRecognition Testing. Mediterr J Otol. 2006;3:117-26.
[2] Jerger J, Hayes D. Diagnostic speech audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol. 1977;103(4):216-22. [DOI:10.1001/archotol.1977.00780210072008]
[3] Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearingimpaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(2):1128-40. [DOI:10.1121/1.421224]
[4] Kumar SBR, Reddy MB, Kranthi S. Development of word lists in Telugu for assessing speech recognition. threshold: alternative forms to existing word lists. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;2(3):147-56. [DOI:10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20162181]
[5] Egan JP. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope. 1948;58(9):955-91. [DOI:10.1288/00005537-194809000-00002]
[6] Lehiste I, Peterson GE. Linguistic Considerations in the Study of Speech Intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1959;31(3):280-6. [DOI:10.1121/1.1907713]
[7] Clopper CG, Pierrehumbert JB, Tamati TN. Lexical neighborhoods and phonological confusability in cross-dialect word recognition in noise. Lab Phonol. 2010;1(1):65-92. [DOI:10.1515/labphon.2010.005]
[8] Luce PA, Pisoni DB. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 1998;19(1):1-36. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001]
[9] Kirk KI, Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Hay-McCutcheon M. Lexical neighborhood test: Test-retest reliability and interlist equivalency. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(03):113-23. [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1748471]
[10] Meyer TA, Pisoni DB. Some computational analyses of the PBK test: effects of frequency and lexical density on spoken word recognition. Ear Hear. 1999;20(4):363-71. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199908000-00008]
[11] Aksan Y, Aksan M, Mersinli Ü, Demirhan UU. A Frequency Dictionary of Turkish: Core Vocabulary for Learners. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2017. [DOI:10.4324/9781315733302-1]
[12] Ergenç I. [Konuşma Dili ve Türkçenin söyleyiş sözlüğü]. Ankara: Simurg Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık; 1995. Turkish.
[13] Ergenç I. [Speaking language and Turkish usage dictionary, Multilingual Foreign Language Publications Baskı Printing]. Istanbul: 2002. p. 1-496. Turkish.
[14] Gürzap C. [Söz söyleme ve diksiyon (13. Basım)]. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi; 2009. Turkish.
[15] Penrod JP. Speech threshold and word recognition/discrimination testing. In: J Katz, editor. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1994. p. 147-64.
[16] McArdle R, Hnath-Chisolm T. Speech audiometry. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 64-79.
[17] Strauß A, Wu T, McQueen JM, Scharenborg O, Hintz F. The differential roles of lexical and sublexical processing during spoken-word recognition in clear and in noise. Cortex. 2022;151:70-88. [DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.02.011]
[18] Goldinger SD, Luce PA, Pisoni DB. Priming Lexical Neighbors of Spoken Words: Effects of Competition and Inhibition. J Mem Lang. 1989;28(5):501-18. [DOI:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0]
[19] Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words. Psychol Sci. 1998;9(4):325-9. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9280.00064]
[20] Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition. J Mem Lang. 1999;40(3):374-408. [DOI:10.1006/jmla.1998.2618]
[21] Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production. Annu Rev Linguist. 2016;2:75-94. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832]
[22] Ward J. Second Language Listening in an Academic Context: Lexical, Perceptual and Contextual Cues to Word Recognition. Unpublished Doctorate of Philosophy Thesis, England: Reading University; 2018.
[23] Dirks DD, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A. Effects of lexical factors on word recognition among normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(05):233-44. [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1745602]
[24] Takayanagi S, Dirks DD, Moshfegh A. Lexical and talker effects on word recognition among native and non-native listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(3):585-97. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/047)]
[25] Sommers MS, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB. Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format. Ear Hear. 1997;18(2):89-99. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199704000-00001]
[26] Anderson SE, Chiu E, Huette S, Spivey MJ. On the temporal dynamics of language-mediated vision and vision-mediated language. Acta Psychol. 2011;137(2):181-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.008]
[27] Engelhardt PE, Nigg JT, Ferreira F. Executive Function and Intelligence in the Resolution of Temporary Syntactic Ambiguity: An Individual Differences Investigation. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017;70(7):1263-81. [DOI:10.1080/17470218.2016.1178785]
[28] McQueen JM, Meyer AS. Key issues and future directions: Towards a comprehensive cognitive architecture for language use. In: Hagoort P, editor. Human Language: From Genes and Brains to Behavior (The MIT Press). Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 2019. p. 85-96. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/10841.003.0009]
[29] Nissen SL, Harris RW, Lara-Jill Jennings LJ, Eggett DL, Buck H. Psychometrically equivalent mandarin bisyllabic speech discrimination materials spoken by male and female talkers. Int J Audiol. 2005;44(7):379-90. [DOI:10.1080/14992020500147615]
[30] Wang S, Mannell R, Newall P, Zhang H, Han D. Development and evaluation of Mandarin disyllabic materials for speech audiometry in China. Int J Audiol. 2007;46(12):719-31. [DOI:10.1080/14992020701558511]
[31] Kemaloğlu YK, Kamışlı GS, Mengü G. Phonemic analysis of Turkish monosyllabic word lists used for speech discrimination word recognition tests. The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat. 2017;27(4):198-207. [DOI:10.5606/kbbihtisas.2017.06791]
[32] Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11(09):489-93. [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1748141]
[33] Wilson RH, McArdle R, Roberts H. A Comparison of Recognition Performances in Speech-Spectrum Noise by Listeners with Normal Hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 Spondaic Words, and Monosyllabic Digits Spoken by the Same Speaker. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(06):496-506. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.19.6.5]
IssueVol 32 No 3 (2023) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Speech audiometry speech discrimination tests hearing tests psychoacoustics

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Arslan B, Özlüoğlu LN. Effect of Lexical Neighbourhood on Word Recognition Test: A Study in Turkish. Aud Vestib Res. 2023;32(3):240-248.