Comparison of the Ling-6 Sound Test with Warble Tone Stimuli in Audiometry of Hearing-Impaired Children Using Hearing Aids Considering Different Prescriptions and Normal-Hearing Children
-
Marjan Soleimani
,
Nematollah Rouhbakhsh
,
Farzaneh Fatahi
,
Nariman Rahbar
,
Shohreh Jalaie
,
Amir Salar Jafarpisheh
Abstract
Background and Aim: Speech is a vital stimulus and the ultimate goal of hearing aid fitting to make the speech an audible signal. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether it is possible to track the threshold with speech phonemes and which of the two fitting methods of Desired Sensation Level version 5.0 (DSL v5.0) and National Acoustic Laboratories-Nonlinear 2 (NAL-NL2) provide better audibility for the phonemes.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the unaided thresholds of 18 normal-hearing children and the aided thresholds of 15 hearing-impaired children aged 5-8 years were evaluated with two types of stimuli. DSL v5.0 and NAL-NL2 methods were used for hearing aid fitting in hearing-impaired children.
Results: There was a significant relationship between the unaided and aided thresholds of each phoneme and the warble tone threshold at the corresponding frequency (p<0.01), except for the phoneme /s/. The results showed a significant difference between the aided thresholds of each phoneme and the upper limit of the speech banana in the corresponding frequency for each method (Z=–4.99, p≤0.001).
Conclusion: The results showed that phonemes could be used to assess unaided and aided thresholds. In the first fit, both methods estimated the amount of amplification that caused the average aided thresholds for these six phonemes for moderate to severe hearing loss to be positioned within the speech banana range, except for the average aided thresholds for the /s/ phoneme in the NAL-NL2 method that was placed outside the range.
1. Moon C. The role of early auditory development in attachment and communication. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(4):657-69. [DOI:10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.009]
2. Dalzell L, Orlando M, MacDonald M, Berg A, Bradley M, Cacace A, et al. The New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention. Ear Hear. 2000;21(2):118-30. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200004000-00006]
3. Kaye CI; Committee on Genetics; Accurso F, La Franchi S, Lane PA, Hope N, et al. Newborn screening fact sheets. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):e934-63. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2006-1783]
4. Wood SA, Sutton GJ, Davis AC. Performance and characteristics of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England: The first seven years. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(6):353-8. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2014.989548]
5. Stika CJ, Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Henning SC, Colson BG, Ganguly DH, et al. Developmental outcomes of earlyidentified children who are hard of hearing at 12 to 18 months of age. Early Hum Dev. 2015;91(1):47-55. [DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2014.11.005]
6. Ching TYC, Leigh G. Considering the impact of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and early intervention on language outcomes for children with congenital hearing loss. Hear Balance Commun. 2020;18(4):215-24. [DOI:10.1080/21695717.2020.1846923]
7. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey A.Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: interrelationships with language and hearing. Volta Review. 1998;100(5):181-211.
8. Newton V.Benefits of an early identification and diagnosis of permanent bilateral hearing loss.Hear Balance Commun. 2013;11(3):91-9. [DOI:10.3109/21695717.2013.820512]
9. Ching TY. Is Early Intervention Effective in Improving Spoken Language Outcomes of Children With Congenital Hearing Loss? Am J Audiol. 2015;24(3):345-8. [DOI:10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007]
10. Nagarajan SS, Cheung SW, Bedenbaugh P, Beitel RE, Schreiner CE, Merzenich MM. Representation of spectral and temporal envelope of twitter vocalizations in common marmoset primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2002;87(4):1723-37. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00632.2001]
11. Ling D. Foundations of Spoken Language for the Hearing-Impaired Child. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. 1989.
12. McCreery RW, Walker EA. Hearing aid verification for children.In: McCreery RW, Walker EA, editors. Pediatric amplification: enhancing auditory access. San Diego, CA:Plural Publishing; 2017. p. 77-104.
13. Scollie S, Glista D, Tenhaaf J, Dunn A, Malandrino A, Keene K, et al. Stimuli and normative data for detection of Ling-6 sounds in hearing level. Am J Audiol. 2012;21(2):232-41. [DOI:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0020)]
14. Glista D, Scollie S, Moodie S, Easwar V; Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada. The Ling 6(HL) test: typical pediatric performance data and clinical use evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25(10):1008-21. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.25.10.9]
15. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2012.
16. Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(7):441-59. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.22.7.5]
17. Ching TYC, Zhang VW, Johnson EE, Van Buynder P, Hou S, Burns L, et al. Hearing aid fitting and developmental outcomes of children fit according to either the NAL or DSL prescription: fit-to-target, audibility, speech and language abilities. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(sup2):S41-54. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2017.1380851]
18. Ching TYC, Johnson EE, Seeto M, Macrae JH. Hearing-aid safety: A comparison of estimated threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions for children. Int J Audiol.2013;(52 Supl 2):S39-45. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.847976]
19. Mueller HG, Ricketts T,Bentler RA.Speech Mapping and Probe Microphone Measurements. San Diego,CA:Plural Publishing; 2017.
20. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e298-319. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2005-1467]
21. Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18(3):220-35. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.18.3.4]
22. Mehta K, Watkin P, Baldwin M, Marriage J, Mahon M, Vickers D. Role of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Reducing the Age at Hearing Aid Fitting in Children With Hearing Loss Identified by Newborn Hearing Screening. Trends Hear. 2017;21:2331216517744094. [DOI:10.1177/2331216517744094]
23. Souza MRF, Iorio MCM. Speech Intelligibility Index and the Ling 6(HL) test: correlations in pediatric hearing aid users. Codas. 2021;33(6):e20200094. English. [DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/20202020094]
24. Tenhaaf JJ, Scollie SD.Normative threshold levels for a calibrated, computer-assisted version of the ling six-sound test. Can Acoust. 2005;33(3):44-5.
25. McDonnell S.The Ling Sound Test: What is its Relevance in the New Zealand Classroom?. Kairaranga. 2014:15(2):48-55. [DOI:10.54322/kairaranga.v15i2.250]
26. Yoshikawa S, Ikeda K, Kudo T, Kobayashi T. The effects of hypoxia, premature birth, infection, ototoxic drugs, circulatory system and congenital disease on neonatal hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2004;31(4):361-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.anl.2004.07.007]
27. Guo J, Chai R, Li H, Sun S. Protection of Hair Cells from Ototoxic Drug-Induced Hearing Loss. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1130:17-36. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-6123-4_2]
2. Dalzell L, Orlando M, MacDonald M, Berg A, Bradley M, Cacace A, et al. The New York State universal newborn hearing screening demonstration project: ages of hearing loss identification, hearing aid fitting, and enrollment in early intervention. Ear Hear. 2000;21(2):118-30. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200004000-00006]
3. Kaye CI; Committee on Genetics; Accurso F, La Franchi S, Lane PA, Hope N, et al. Newborn screening fact sheets. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):e934-63. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2006-1783]
4. Wood SA, Sutton GJ, Davis AC. Performance and characteristics of the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England: The first seven years. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(6):353-8. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2014.989548]
5. Stika CJ, Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Henning SC, Colson BG, Ganguly DH, et al. Developmental outcomes of earlyidentified children who are hard of hearing at 12 to 18 months of age. Early Hum Dev. 2015;91(1):47-55. [DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2014.11.005]
6. Ching TYC, Leigh G. Considering the impact of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and early intervention on language outcomes for children with congenital hearing loss. Hear Balance Commun. 2020;18(4):215-24. [DOI:10.1080/21695717.2020.1846923]
7. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey A.Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: interrelationships with language and hearing. Volta Review. 1998;100(5):181-211.
8. Newton V.Benefits of an early identification and diagnosis of permanent bilateral hearing loss.Hear Balance Commun. 2013;11(3):91-9. [DOI:10.3109/21695717.2013.820512]
9. Ching TY. Is Early Intervention Effective in Improving Spoken Language Outcomes of Children With Congenital Hearing Loss? Am J Audiol. 2015;24(3):345-8. [DOI:10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007]
10. Nagarajan SS, Cheung SW, Bedenbaugh P, Beitel RE, Schreiner CE, Merzenich MM. Representation of spectral and temporal envelope of twitter vocalizations in common marmoset primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol. 2002;87(4):1723-37. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00632.2001]
11. Ling D. Foundations of Spoken Language for the Hearing-Impaired Child. Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf. 1989.
12. McCreery RW, Walker EA. Hearing aid verification for children.In: McCreery RW, Walker EA, editors. Pediatric amplification: enhancing auditory access. San Diego, CA:Plural Publishing; 2017. p. 77-104.
13. Scollie S, Glista D, Tenhaaf J, Dunn A, Malandrino A, Keene K, et al. Stimuli and normative data for detection of Ling-6 sounds in hearing level. Am J Audiol. 2012;21(2):232-41. [DOI:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0020)]
14. Glista D, Scollie S, Moodie S, Easwar V; Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada. The Ling 6(HL) test: typical pediatric performance data and clinical use evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25(10):1008-21. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.25.10.9]
15. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2012.
16. Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(7):441-59. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.22.7.5]
17. Ching TYC, Zhang VW, Johnson EE, Van Buynder P, Hou S, Burns L, et al. Hearing aid fitting and developmental outcomes of children fit according to either the NAL or DSL prescription: fit-to-target, audibility, speech and language abilities. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(sup2):S41-54. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2017.1380851]
18. Ching TYC, Johnson EE, Seeto M, Macrae JH. Hearing-aid safety: A comparison of estimated threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions for children. Int J Audiol.2013;(52 Supl 2):S39-45. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.847976]
19. Mueller HG, Ricketts T,Bentler RA.Speech Mapping and Probe Microphone Measurements. San Diego,CA:Plural Publishing; 2017.
20. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e298-319. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2005-1467]
21. Ching TY, Hill M. The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18(3):220-35. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.18.3.4]
22. Mehta K, Watkin P, Baldwin M, Marriage J, Mahon M, Vickers D. Role of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Reducing the Age at Hearing Aid Fitting in Children With Hearing Loss Identified by Newborn Hearing Screening. Trends Hear. 2017;21:2331216517744094. [DOI:10.1177/2331216517744094]
23. Souza MRF, Iorio MCM. Speech Intelligibility Index and the Ling 6(HL) test: correlations in pediatric hearing aid users. Codas. 2021;33(6):e20200094. English. [DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/20202020094]
24. Tenhaaf JJ, Scollie SD.Normative threshold levels for a calibrated, computer-assisted version of the ling six-sound test. Can Acoust. 2005;33(3):44-5.
25. McDonnell S.The Ling Sound Test: What is its Relevance in the New Zealand Classroom?. Kairaranga. 2014:15(2):48-55. [DOI:10.54322/kairaranga.v15i2.250]
26. Yoshikawa S, Ikeda K, Kudo T, Kobayashi T. The effects of hypoxia, premature birth, infection, ototoxic drugs, circulatory system and congenital disease on neonatal hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2004;31(4):361-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.anl.2004.07.007]
27. Guo J, Chai R, Li H, Sun S. Protection of Hair Cells from Ototoxic Drug-Induced Hearing Loss. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1130:17-36. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-6123-4_2]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 33 No 2 (2024) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v33i2.14812 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Ling-6 sound test pediatric audiometry desired sensation level version 5.0 national acoustic laboratories-nonlinear 2 | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Soleimani M, Rouhbakhsh N, Fatahi F, Rahbar N, Jalaie S, Jafarpisheh AS. Comparison of the Ling-6 Sound Test with Warble Tone Stimuli in Audiometry of Hearing-Impaired Children Using Hearing Aids Considering Different Prescriptions and Normal-Hearing Children. Aud Vestib Res. 2023;33(2):99-109.
