Sensitivity of the antiphasic digits-in-noise test to simulated unilateral and bilateral conductive hearing loss

Sigrid Polspoel, David R. Moore, De Wet Swanepoel, Sophia E. Kramer, Cas Smits

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study is (1) to assess whether the presentation level of the antiphasic digits-in-noise (DIN) test affects the speech recognition threshold (SRT), (2) to evaluate how accurately simulated unilateral and bilateral conductive hearing loss is detected (CHL) and (3) to determine whether increasing the presentation level normalises the antiphasic DIN SRT. Design Participants performed antiphasic and diotic DINs at different presentation levels with unilateral, bilateral or no earplugs. Study sample Twenty-four and twelve normal hearing adults. Results Without earplugs, antiphasic DIN SRTs did not differ between 60 and 80 dB SPL. At 60 dB SPL, the antiphasic DIN correctly classified 92% of the unilateral earplug cases; the diotic DIN 25%. The binaural intelligibility level difference did not differ between the no-earplug condition and the condition with bilateral earplugs when the presentation was increased with the attenuation level. Conclusions In normal hearing participants, diotic and antiphasic DIN SRTs are independent of presentation level above a minimum level of 60 dB SPL. The antiphasic DIN is more sensitive than the diotic DIN for detecting unilateral CHL; not for bilateral CHL. The effect of CHL on DIN SRTs can be largely compensated by increasing the presentation level. Audibility plays an important role in the antiphasic and diotic DIN.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1022-1030
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Audiology
Volume62
Issue number11
Early online date16 Sept 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Sensitivity of the antiphasic digits-in-noise test to simulated unilateral and bilateral conductive hearing loss'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this