LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,089
تعداد مقالات9,995
تعداد مشاهده مقاله26,451,296
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله7,288,066
Oryadi-Zanjani, Mohammad Majid. (1401). A systematic review of speech recognition assessment tools for Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9(4), 143-150. doi: 10.30476/jrsr.2022.93971.1255
Mohammad Majid Oryadi-Zanjani. "A systematic review of speech recognition assessment tools for Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9, 4, 1401, 143-150. doi: 10.30476/jrsr.2022.93971.1255
Oryadi-Zanjani, Mohammad Majid. (1401). 'A systematic review of speech recognition assessment tools for Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 9(4), pp. 143-150. doi: 10.30476/jrsr.2022.93971.1255
Oryadi-Zanjani, Mohammad Majid. A systematic review of speech recognition assessment tools for Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1401; 9(4): 143-150. doi: 10.30476/jrsr.2022.93971.1255

A systematic review of speech recognition assessment tools for Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders

Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research
مقاله 1، دوره 9، شماره 4، اسفند 2022، صفحه 143-150    اصل مقاله (586.49 K)
نوع مقاله: Systematic Reviews
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jrsr.2022.93971.1255
نویسنده
Mohammad Majid Oryadi-Zanjani*
Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
چکیده
Background 
Speech recognition is a significant component of speech perception assessment as a main clinical target in children with hearing disorders. The current article presents a systematic review designed to provide clinical and research guidelines for speech recognition assessment in Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted to cumulate the research evidence for the assessment of speech recognition in Persian-speaking children with and without hearing disorders. Peer-reviewed journal articles dedicated to this issue and published between 1982 and December 2021 were discovered through a search of the electronic databases of PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Magiran, IranMedex, Scientific Information Database (SID), and Google Scholar. The papers were analyzed according to different variables, including test age, vocabulary competency, cognitive demands, response format, presentation mode, stimulus format, stimulus variability, stimulus mode, and test conditions.
Results
The review identified four papers related to the development of five assessment tools for measuring speech recognition in Persian-speaking children, namely Persian Monosyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Tests (PMLNTs), Persian Disyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Tests (PDLNTs), Persian version of the words-in-noise (WIN), Tavana (test for evaluating auditory skills), and closed-set speech recognition test for Persian-speaking children. The properties and limitations of each test have been considered in the current review article.
Conclusion
Based on this systematic review, only four speech recognition assessment tools exist for measuring specifically spoken word recognition in Persian-speaking children. The results of this review article can be used as a clinical and research guideline for assessing speech recognition in Persian-speaking children with hearing disorders.
 
کلیدواژه‌ها
hearing disorders؛ speech recognition؛ children؛ assessment؛ cochlear implantation
مراجع
 

  1. Kirk KI, Hudgins M. Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition in Children with Cochlear Implants. In: Young NM, Kirk KI, editors. Pediatric Cochlear Implantation. USA: Springer Nature; 2016. p. 145-61.
  2. Holt RF, Lalonde K. Assessing toddlers' speech-sound discrimination. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(5):680-92.
  3. Moeller MP, Hoover B, Putman C, Arbataitis K, Bohnenkamp G, Peterson B, et al. Vocalizations of Infants with Hearing Loss Compared with Infants with Normal Hearing: Part I – Phonetic Development. Ear Hear. 2007;28(5):605-27.
  4. Moeller MP, Hoover B, Putman C, Arbataitis K, Bohnenkamp G, Peterson B, et al. Vocalizations of Infants with Hearing Loss Compared with Infants with Normal Hearing: Part II – Transition to Words Ear & Hearing. 2007;28(5):628-42.
  5. Oryadi-Zanjani MM. Production of Infant Scale Evaluation (PRISE) in Persian normal hearing children: A validation study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;113:76-81.
  6. Kirk KI, Diefendorf AO, Pisoni DB, Robbins AM. Assessing speech perception in children. USA: Indiana University, 1995.
  7. Robbins AM, Kirk KI. Speech perception assessment and performance in pediatric cochlear implant users. Seminars in Hearing. 1996;17(4):353-69.
  8. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Purdy SC, Vahab M, Rasouli J, Vasfinia M, Lotf E. Translation and Adaptation of the Auditory Behavior in Everyday Life. JRSR. 2015;3:63-7.
  9. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Purdy SC. The Persian Version of the Auditory Behavior in Everyday Life Questionnaire Int J School Health. 2018;5(1):e55952.
  10. Mitchell RM, Christianson E, Ramirez R, Onchiri FM, Horn DL, Pontis L, et al. Auditory comprehension outcomes in children who receive a cochlear implant before 12 months of age. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(3):776-81.
  11. Koopmann M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Illg A. Speech Perception, Dichotic Listening, and Ear Advantage in Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implanted Children. Otol Neurotol. 2020;41(2):e208-e15.
  12. Cesur S, Yuksel M, Ciprut A. Data logging variables and speech perception in prelingually deafened pediatric cochlear implant users. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;133:110003.
  13. Dettman S, Choo D, Au A, Luu A, Dowell R. Speech Perception and Language Outcomes for Infants Receiving Cochlear Implants Before or After 9 Months of Age: Use of Category-Based Aggregation of Data in an Unselected Pediatric Cohort. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(3):1023-39.
  14. Li G, Zhao F, Tao Y, Zhang L, Yao X, Zheng Y. Trajectory of auditory and language development in the early stages of pre-lingual children post cochlear implantation: A longitudinal follow up study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;128:109720.
  15. Soltaninejad N, Jalilevand N, Kamali M, Mohamadi R. Language therapy outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implant using a new developed program: A pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;133:110009.
  16. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Hasanzadeh S, Rahgozar M, Shemshadi H, Purdy SC, Bakhtiari BM, et al. Comparing the effect of auditory-only and auditory-visual modes in two groups of Persian children using cochlear implants: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(9):1545-50.
  17. Choi JE, Hong SH, Moon IJ. Academic Performance, Communication, and Psychosocial Development of Prelingual Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants in Mainstream Schools. Journal of audiology & otology. 2020.
  18. Mukari SZ, Ling LN, Ghani HA. Educational performance of pediatric cochlear implant recipients in mainstream classes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71(2):231-40.
  19. Zaltz Y, Bugannim Y, Zechoval D, Kishon-Rabin L, Perez R. Listening in Noise Remains a Significant Challenge for Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from Early Deafened and Those with Progressive Hearing Loss Compared to Peers with Normal Hearing. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5).
  20. Lee Y, Sim H. Bilateral cochlear implantation versus unilateral cochlear implantation in deaf children: Effects of sentence context and listening conditions on recognition of spoken words in sentences. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;137:110237.
  21. Eisenberg LS, Fisher LM, Johnson KC, Ganguly DH, Grace T, Niparko JK, et al. Sentence Recognition in Quiet and Noise by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships to Spoken Language. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):e75-81.
  22. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Mohammadi T, Mohammadi Z, Vahab M. Predictive Factors of Language Development in Persian-speaking Children Using Cochlear Implants: A Pilot Study. JRSR. 2021;8(3):126-31.
  23. Pisoni DB. Speech perception in deaf children with cochlear implants. In: Pisoni DB, Remez RE, editors. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2009. p. 494-523.
  24. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Bazrafkan M, Haghjoo A. Audiovisual spoken word recognition as a clinical criterion for sensory aids efficiency in Persian-language children with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(12):2424-7.
  25. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Rahimi Z, Mayahi A. Audiovisual sentence repetition as a clinical criterion for auditory development in Persian-language children with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;93:167-71.
  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000
  27. Frisch S, Meyer TA, Pisoni DB, Svirsky MA, Kirk KI. Using behavioral data to model open-set word recognition and lexical organization by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2000;185:60-2.
  28. Holt RF, Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M. Assessing multimodal spoken word-in-sentence recognition in children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(2):632-57.
  29. Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RC. Effects of stimulus variability on speech perception in listeners with hearing impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(6):1395-405.
  30. Kirk KI, Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Hay-McCutcheon M. The Lexical Neighborhood Test: Test-Retest Reliability and Inter-List Equivalency. Indiana: Indiana University, 1998.
  31. Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M, Sehgal ST, Miyamoto RT. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1998;185:79-81.
  32. Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Holt RF, Gao S, Qi R, Gehrlein BL. Audiovisual Spoken Word Recognition by Children with Cochlear Implants. Audiol Med. 2007;5(4):250-61.
  33. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Zamani A. Development of Persian Lexical Neighborhood Tests. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;139:110406.
  34. Lotfi Y, Salim S, Mehrkian S, Ahmadi T, Biglarian A. The Persian version of words-in-noise test for young population: development and validation. Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2016;25(4):194-200.
  35. Jarollahi F, Modarresi Y, Keyhani MR. Content validity of Tavana: a test for evaluation of auditory skills of 3-4 year-old hearing-impaired Persian children. Audiol. 2010;19(1):11-22.
  36. Adelghahraman M, Modaresi D, Sedaei M, Babei D. Development, Standardization and Evaluation of A Close-set Speech Recognotion Test For Persian Speaking Children of 4 to 6 Years old. Bimonthly Audiology-Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2000;8(1):14-9.
  37. Zanjani MMO, Vahab M, Karimi L. Comparing “Mean Length of Utterance” and “Mean Length of Five Phrasal Utterances” between 2-To-5 Year-Old Normal Farsi-Speaking Children. JRSR. 2014;1:52-5.
  38. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition in children with hearing impairment: Test-Retest Reliability of the Persian Lexical Neighborhood Tests. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research. 2021;8:169-75.
  39. Weber A, Scharenborg O. Models of spoken-word recognition. WIREs Cogn Sci. 2012;3:387–401.
  40. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear Hear. 1998;19(1):1-36.
  41. Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 1995;16(5):470-81.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 892
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 417


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب