Evaluation of speech perception in noise in Kurd-Persian bilinguals

  • Yones Lotfi Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Jamileh Chupani ORCID Mail Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Mohanna Javanbakht ORCID Department of Audiology, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Enayatollah Bakhshi Department of Biostatistics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Kurd-Persian; bilingual; monolingual; quick speech in noise test; consonant vowel in noise test; speech perception in noise


Background and Aim: In most everyday settings, speech is heard in the presence of competing sounds and speech perception in noise is affected by various factors, including cognitive factors. In this regard, bilingualism is a phenomenon that changes cognitive and behavioral processes as well as the nervous system. This study aimed to evaluate speech perception in noise and compare differences in Kurd-Persian bilinguals versus Persian monolinguals.
Methods: This descriptive-analytic study was performed on 92 students with normal hearing, 46 of whom were bilingual Kurd-Persian with a mean (SD) age of 22.73 (1.92) years, and 46 other Persian monolinguals with a mean (SD) age of 22.71 (2.28) years. They were examined by consonant-vowel in noise (CV in noise) test and quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS 21.
Results: The comparison of the results showed differences in both tests between bilingual and monolingual subjects. In both groups, the reduction of signal-to-noise ratio led to lower scores, but decrease in CV in noise test in bilinguals was less than monolinguals (p < 0.001) and in the Q-SIN test, the drop in bilinguals’ score was more than monolinguals (p = 0.002).
Conclusion: Kurd-Persian bilinguals had a better performance in CV in noise test but had a worse performance in Q-SIN test than Persian monolinguals.


1. Moossavi A, Javanbakht M, Arbab Sarjoo H, Bakhshi E, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B, Lotfi Y. Development and psychometric evaluation of Persian version of the quick speech in noise test in Persian speaking 18-25 years old normal adults. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research. 2016;3(3):51-6.
2. Jafari Z, Esmaili M, Toufan R, Aghamollaei M. Bilingual proficiency and cognitive reserve in Persian-English bilingual older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(3):351-7. doi: 10.1007/s40520-014-0288-x
3. Soleymani M, Jarollahi F, Hosseini AF, Rahmani E. The effects of bilingualism on auditory memory using Persian version of dichotic auditory-verbal memory test. Aud Vestib Res. 2015;24(3):128-33.
4. Ziegler JC, Pech-Georgel C, George F, Alario FX, Lorenzi C. Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(39):14110-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504446102
5. Kraus N, Anderson S. Bilingualism enhances neural speech encoding. Hear J. 2014;67(7):40. doi: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000452246.45569.6a
6. Krizman J, Marian V, Shook A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(20):7877-81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1201575109
7. Krizman J, Slater J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. Neural processing of speech in children is influenced by extent of bilingual experience. Neurosci Lett. 2015;585:48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.11.011
8. Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN tests. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2006;30(2):86-94.
9. Lucks Mendel L, Widner H. Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(2):126-34. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1061710
10. Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS-Y, Kraus N. How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2017;20(4):834-43. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000444
11. Onoda RM, Pereira LD, Guilherme A. Temporal processing and dichotic listening in bilingual and non-bilingual descendants. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;72(6):737-46. doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31040-5 46
12. Negin E, Farahani S, Jalaie S, Barootian SS, Pourjavid A, Eatemadi M, et al. Effect of bilingualism on volume of corpus callosum. Aud Vestib Res. 2016;25(2):127-34.
13. Weiss D, Dempsey JJ. Performance of bilingual speakers on the English and Spanish versions of the hearing in noise test (HINT). J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(1):5-17.
14. Lotfi Y, Kargar S, Javanbakht M, Biglarian A. Development, validity and reliability of the Persian version of the consonant-vowel in white noise test. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences and Research. 2016;3(2):29-34.
15. Shobha NH, Thomas TG, Subbarao K. Experimental evaluation of improvement in consonant recognition for the hearing-impaired listeners: role of consonant-vowel intensity ratio. J Theor Appl Inf Technol. 2009;7(2):101-9.
16. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004;116(4):2395-405. doi: 10.1121/1.1784440
17. Shanks J, Shohet J. Tympanometry in clinical practice. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 157-88.
18. Gelfand SA. The acoustic reflex. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 189-221.
19. Anderson S, Kraus N. Sensory-cognitive interaction in the neural encoding of speech in noise: a review. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2010;21(9):575-85. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.9.3
20. Zatorre RJ, Gandour JT. Neural specializations for speech and pitch: moving beyond the dichotomies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1493):1087-104. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2161
21. Krizman J, Skoe E, Marian V, Kraus N. Bilingualism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: Evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain and language. 2014;128(1):34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.006
22. Tabri D, Abou Chacra KM, Pring T. Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46(4):411-22. doi: 10.3109/13682822.2010.519372
23. Bidelman GM, Dexter L. Bilinguals at the "cocktail party": dissociable neural activity in auditory-linguistic brain regions reveals neurobiological basis for nonnative listeners' speech-in-noise recognition deficits. Brain Lang. 2015;143:32-41. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.02.002
How to Cite
Lotfi Y, Chupani J, Javanbakht M, Bakhshi E. Evaluation of speech perception in noise in Kurd-Persian bilinguals. Aud Vestib Res. 28(1):36-41.
Research Article(s)