Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: The ability to recognize the sounds of speech enables an efficient communication. This ability must always be considered when communication disorders are evaluated. In this study, sentences of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), originally developed in English and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese, were used to evaluate speech recognition in silence and in the presence of noise. Although this test can be an important clinical tool, it is noticed that it has not been used in audiological clinical practice in Brazil. One possible reason is the lack of standardization of some aspects of the test, including the methods adopted to analyze the patient's answers.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze different judgment criteria of individuals' answers during sentence recognition thresholds measurement using the HINT in Brazilian Portuguese.
Methods: The study was conducted with 30 young adults (three groups of 10 people), between 18 and 25 years old, of both genders, with normal hearing. HINT sentences were adapted to Brazilian Portuguese and speech recognition thresholds were determined in the presence of noise by using three judgment criteria published in Brazilian literature. A single variation analysis was performed to compare the average threshold between the three groups. The maximum error probability to reject the null hypothesis was 5%.
Results: The mean and standard deviations of thresholds, respectively, were: 59.90 ± 1.43 dB SPL; 59.60 ± 0.53 dB SPL and 59.95 ± 0.6 dB SPL. There was no statistically significant difference between the means (F = 0.398; p> 0.05).
Conclusion: Regardless the judging criteria used, results obtained in all groups were equivalent.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016082 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!