Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery
Published in: Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery 2/2019

01-11-2019 | Original Article

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

Authors: Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi, Maryam Delphi, Vafa Delphi

Published in: Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery | Special Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

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.
Literature
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):1057–1065CrossRef
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 2018:1–5
3.
Moossavi A, Abdollahi FZ, Lotfi Y (2017) Spatial auditory processing in children with central auditory processing disorder. Audit Vestib Res 26(2):56–63
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):128–146CrossRef
5.
Fonseca CBF, Iório MCM (2006) Application of the lateralization sound test in elderly individuals. Pró-Fono Rev Atual Cient 18(2):197–206CrossRef
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):697–709CrossRef
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):437PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Shemesh R (2008) Psychoacoustic tests for central auditory processing: normative data. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 19(3–4):249–260PubMed
9.
Cameron S, Dillon H (2007) Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear 28(2):196–211CrossRef
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):135–141CrossRef
11.
Tyler RS, Perreau AE, Ji H (2009) The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire. Ear Hear 30(4):466CrossRef
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 29:231
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 31:36CrossRef
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):182–189CrossRef
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):3073–3084CrossRef
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):279–284CrossRef
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):101–109CrossRef
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):412–423CrossRef
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):293–300CrossRef
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):25–33CrossRef
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):10CrossRef
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):65CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Correlation Analysis Between the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ) and the Psychophysical Measurement of Spatial Hearing
Authors
Farzaneh Zamiri Abdollahi
Maryam Delphi
Vafa Delphi
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery / Issue Special Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 2231-3796
Electronic ISSN: 0973-7707
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-019-01674-2

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2019

Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery 2/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

A Study on Outcome of Myringoplasty in Dry Ear (Quiescent/Inactive CSOM) Without Using Gelfoam in Middle Ear

Original Article

Cinnarizine: A Contemporary Review

Original Article

Hearing Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Renal Failure: A 1 Year Cross-Sectional Study in a Tertiary Care Centre

Original Article

The Significant Correlation Between the Density of the Cochlea Otic Capsule and Spine in Hearing Loss Patients

Original Article

Standardisation of Tinnitus Handicap Inventory in Hindi

Original Article

Study the Effect of Tubotympanic Disease on Bone Conduction Threshold