Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:37:18.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speech in noise testing before and after grommet insertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2012

V Possamai ,
G Kirk ,
A Scott  and
D Skinner
V Possamai*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, UK
G Kirk
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, UK
A Scott
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, UK
D Skinner
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr V Possamai, 17 Albany Rd, Harborne, Birmingham B17 9JX, UK E-mail: victoriapossamai@mac.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To assess the feasibility of designing and implementing a speech in noise test in children before and after grommet insertion, and to analyse the results of such a test in a small group of children.

Methods:

Twelve children aged six to nine years who were scheduled to undergo grommet insertion were identified. They underwent speech in noise testing before and after grommet insertion. This testing used Arthur Boothroyd word lists read at 60 dB in four listening conditions presented in a sound field: firstly in quiet conditions, then in signal to noise ratios of +10 (50 dB background noise), 0 (60 dB) and −10 (70 dB).

Results:

Mean phoneme scores were: in quiet conditions, 28.1 pre- and 30 post-operatively (p = 0.04); in 50 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio +10), 24.2 pre- and 29 post-operatively (p < 0.01); in 60 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio 0), 22.6 pre- and 27.5 post-operatively (p = 0.06); and in 70 dB background noise (signal to noise ratio −10), 13.9 pre- and 21 post-operatively (p = 0.05).

Conclusion:

This small study suggests that speech in noise testing is feasible in this scenario. Our small group of children demonstrated a significant improvement in speech in noise scores following grommet insertion. This is likely to translate into a significant advantage in the educational environment.

Keywords

Grommet InsertionAudiometrySpeechOtitis Media
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 10 , October 2012 , pp. 1010 - 1015
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Department of Health: Publication Statistics: Trends in children's surgery 1994–2005 statistical report. In: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_066322 [20 June 2010]Google Scholar
2Haringey NHS Trust: Teaching Primary Care NHS Trust: Report to the HTPCT Board. In: http://www.haringey.nhs.uk/foi/foi_docs/5489_implementation_of%20additional%20service%20access%20criteria.doc [20 June 2010]Google Scholar
3NHS Worcestershire Commissioning Policy: Insertion of Ventilation Tube through the Tympanic Membrane (Grommets). In: http://www.worcestershire.nhs.uk/file_download.aspx?id=51547b26 [16 May 2011]Google Scholar
4NHS Cornwall and Isles of Scilly: Commissioning Policy Statement 7: Myringotomy with/without grommets children and adults. In: http://www.cornwallandislesofscilly.nhs.uk/DocumentsLibrary/CornwallAndIslesOfScillyPCT/Policies/Finance/Funding/MyringotomyPolicy.pdf [16 May 2011]Google Scholar
5NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Surgical management of otitis media with effusion in children. In: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11928/48420/48420.pdf [20 June 2010]Google Scholar
6Lous, J, Burton, MJ, Felding, JU, Ovesen, T, Rovers, MM, Williamson, I. Grommets (ventilation tubes) for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(1):CD001801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Browning, GC, Rovers, MM, Williamson, I, Lous, J, Burton, MJ. Grommets (ventilation tubes) for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(10):CD001801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Speech Audiometry. Martin, M, ed. London: Whurr, 1987;30–31Google Scholar
9Jerger, S, Jerger, J, Alford, BR, Abrams, S. Development of speech intelligibility in children with recurrent otitis media. Ear Hear 1983;4:138–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Speech Audiometry. Martin, M, ed. London: Whurr, 1987;144–7Google Scholar
11MRC Multicentre Otitis Media Study Group. Speech reception in noise: an indicator of benefit from otitis media with effusion surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2004;29:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Arnold, P, Canning, D. Does classroom amplification aid comprehension? Br J Audiol 1999;33:171–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Crandell, C, Smaldino, J. Speech perception in the classroom. In: Crandell, C, Smaldino, J, Flexer, C, eds. Sound-field FM Amplification: Theory and Practical Applications. San Diego, California: Singular, 1995Google Scholar
14Crandell, C, Smaldino, J. Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 2000;31:362–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15American Speech-Language-Hearing Association: Acoustics in Educational Settings: Position Statement. In: http://www.asha.org/docs/html/PS2005-00028.html [1 October 2011]Google Scholar
16Boothroyd, A. Developments in speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 1968;2:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar