Advertisement

The Correlation Analysis Between the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ) and the Psychophysical Measurement of Spatial Hearing

  • Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi
  • Maryam DelphiEmail author
  • Vafa Delphi
Original Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the present study was examining the relationship between a psychophysical spatial hearing test (spatial word in noise test) and Spatial Hearing Questionnaire. Sixty-six adults (18–40 years old) were divided in three groups: normal subjects, subjects with mild and moderate hearing loss. Spatial word in noise test and Persian version of the spatial hearing questionnaire were evaluated and compared among these groups. According to Pearson’s test, there was a significant positive correlation between the scores of spatial word in noise test and Persian version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire in three groups (r = 0.64–0.89). Hearing loss can deteriorate spatial hearing ability. Both objective and subjective spatial hearing tests are shown to be effective in detecting spatial hearing disorder.

Keywords

Spatial hearing Speech-in-noise perception Questionnaire Hearing loss 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the individuals who participated in this study.

Funding

This paper is extracted from a research project approved by the Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant Numbers PHT-9621). We would like to thank all the individuals who participated in this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Culling JF, Hawley ML, Litovsky RY (2004) The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. J Acoust Soc Am 116(2):1057–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lotfi Y, Moosavi A, Abdollahi FZ, Bakhshi E (2018) Auditory lateralization training effects on binaural interaction component of middle latency response in children suspected to central auditory processing disorder. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018:1–5Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moossavi A, Abdollahi FZ, Lotfi Y (2017) Spatial auditory processing in children with central auditory processing disorder. Audit Vestib Res 26(2):56–63Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cameron S, Brown D, Keith R, Martin J, Watson C, Dillon H (2009) Development of the North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (NA LiSN-S): sentence equivalence, normative data, and test-retest reliability studies. J Am Acad Audiol 20(2):128–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fonseca CBF, Iório MCM (2006) Application of the lateralization sound test in elderly individuals. Pró-Fono Rev Atual Cient 18(2):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H (2011) Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (lisn-s): normative and retest reliability data for adolescents and adults up to 60 years of age. J Am Acad Audiol 22(10):697–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delphi M, Lotfi M-Y, Moossavi A, Bakhshi E, Banimostafa M (2017) Reliability of interaural time difference-based localization training in elderly individuals with speech-in-noise perception disorder. Iran J Med Sci 42(5):437Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shemesh R (2008) Psychoacoustic tests for central auditory processing: normative data. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 19(3–4):249–260Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cameron S, Dillon H (2007) Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear 28(2):196–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galvin KL, Noble W (2013) Adaptation of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale for use with children, parents, and teachers. Cochlear Implants Int 14(3):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H (2009) The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear 30(4):466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delphi M, Abdolahi FZ, Tyler R, Bakhit M, Saki N, Nazeri AR (2015) Validity and reliability of the Persian version of spatial hearing questionnaire. Med J Islamic Repub Iran 29:231Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delphi M, Lotfi Y, Moossavi A, Bakhshi E, Banimostafa M (2017) Envelope-based inter-aural time difference localization training to improve speech-in-noise perception in the elderly. Med J Islam Repub Iran 31:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Esch T, Lutman M, Vormann M, Lyzenga J, Hällgren M, Larsby B et al (2015) Relations between psychophysical measures of spatial hearing and self-reported spatial-hearing abilities. Int J Audiol 54(3):182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goverts ST, Houtgast T (2010) The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: the role of supra-threshold deficits. J Acoust Soc Am 127(5):3073–3084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johansson MS, Arlinger SD (2002) Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise: diferencia en el nivel de enmascaramiento binaural para señates vocales en ruido. Int J Audiol 41(5):279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moulin A, Richard C (2016) Sources of variability of speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) scores in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired populations. Int J Audiol 55(2):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moulin A, Richard C (2016) Validation of a French-language version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, cluster analysis and comparison with the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale. Ear Hear 37(4):412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ou H, Perreau A, Tyler RS (2017) Development of a shortened version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ-S) for screening spatial-hearing ability. Am J Audiol 26(3):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ou H, Wen B, Perreau A, Kim E, Tyler R (2016) Validation of the Chinese translation of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire and its short form. Am J Audiol 25(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramakers GG, Smulders YE, Van Zon A, Van Zanten GA, Grolman W, Stegeman I (2017) Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 17(1):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heo J-H, Lee J-H, Lee W-S (2013) Bimodal benefits on objective and subjective outcomes for adult cochlear implant users. Korean J Audiol 17(2):65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of RehabilitationTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research CenterAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations