Comparison between the SiP-test (Situated Phoneme test) and conventional Swedish SIN (TiB)-test (Speech in Noise Test). : An experimental comparison of two methods for speech perception in people with Arabic as mother tongue.

Abstract: Background: The difficulties for people to understand and perceive speech in second languages in the presence of background noise is well documented in the literature. Similar difficulties have been reported in bilinguals. Consequently, the speech-in-noise tests can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess an individual's speech perception in noisy environments and plan effective hearing rehabilitation but it has less precision in the case of people whose first language is different from the tested language. On the other hand, the newly developed Situated Phoneme Test (SiP) might be a promising diagnostic method for evaluating speech perception in noise. The advantage is that the test person does not have to repeat the words as in the TiB test - something that makes it difficult for people with a different first language - and therefore the source of error of subjective assessment by the audiologist is eliminated. Aim: The aim of the present work is to evaluate the effectiveness of the SiP-test, for a group of people with Arabic as their first language, by examining the results of the SiP-test and the results of the conventional TiB test in relation to expected results for those who have Swedish as first language. A secondary aim is to evaluate people's experiences of using the TiB -test and the SiP-test. Materials and methods: Speech perception in noise was investigated in 32 normal-hearing individuals using the TiB test and the SiP-test. Common to all participants was that they had Arabic as their first language, moved to Sweden after the age of 8 and had good knowledge of the Swedish language according to the results of the language test they completed. The results of the TiB -test and the SIP-test were analyzed and compared with the expected values for people whose first language is Swedish. In addition, two diagnostic methods were evaluated by the participants using a questionnaire, specially designed for this purpose. Results: Overall, the SiP-test results for this group of people with Arabic as first language were similar or better (M = 83.1, SD = 4.31) than expected (M = 75, SD = 0) for those whose first language is Swedish, while the mean value for the TiB -test results was worse (M = 72.9, SD = 2.06) than expected (M = 84, SD = 0) for native Swedishspeakers. The TiB test results showed that no participant managed to reach the expected values based on people whose first language is Swedish. The individuals reported, with the use of a questionnaire, that the SiP-test was easier to perform (n = 18). Participants mentioned " the repeating of the words" as the more difficult for the TiB-test (n = 32) and "the use of the touch screen" as the easier for the SiP-test (n = 30). Conclusions: The results of the present study showed that SIP-test can be an accurate and reliable diagnostic method for the evaluation of speech perception in noise in non-native speakers, compared to the conventional TiB-test. SIP-test proved to be an easy, safe, realistic and objective diagnostic tool, based on the results and the reports of the participants who completed the test. Further research in individuals with various degrees and types of hearing loss, as well as similar studies in populations having other languages than the Arabic as its first language are needed in order to fully investigate the use and clinical applications of the SIP-test as a valuable part of an integral hearing investigation on the everyday clinical practice.