Word recognition under simplified optimal presentation level: a scoping review of oral vs. digital word lists
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. The rights to the works published in this journal are the property of the author, who is free to distribute and disseminate them, provided that the source is correctly cited.
Main Article Content
Abstract
The evaluation of word recognition plays a key role in contemporary audiology, amid a growing debate on the advantages of digitized testing compared with traditional live-voice presentation. This scoping review analyzed studies published between 2020 and 2025, following the PRISMAScR methodology, to compare both modalities and to examine the use of the simplified optimal presentation level (PTA + 30 dB). Findings indicate that digitized word lists provide greater reliability, repeatability, and interexaminer consistency than live-voice presentation. Significant technological progress has been observed, including the development of mobile applications that promote automation and standardization of evaluations. However, major limitations persist, such as the limited adoption of the fixed-intensity criterion (PTA + 30 dB) and the absence of robust statistical analyses, including Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients. Although digitalization has solid methodological foundations, further research employing rigorous comparative designs, advanced reliability analyses, and validation through neurophysiological correlates is required to consolidate its implementation as a clinical standard.
References
Austin A, Ladner K, Mendel LL. Recorded word recognition testing is worth the time. Am J Audiol. 2025; 34(1): 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00080
Billings CJ, Olsen TM, Charney L, Madsen BM, et al. Speech-in-noise testing: An introduction for audiologists. Semin Hear. 2023; 45(1): 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1770155
Carlo MA, Wilson RH, Villanueva-Reyes A. Psychometric Characteristics of Spanish Monosyllabic, Bisyllabic, and Trisyllabic Words for Use in Word-Recognition Protocols. J Am Acad Audiol. 2020; 31(7): 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1709446
Ciscare GKSS, Zabeu JS, dos Santos DR, Morettin-Zupelari M, et al. List of words to evaluate speech perception: Recording and verification of applicability. Revista CEFAC. 2020; 22(5): e2820. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20202252820
Margolis RH, Wilson RH, Saly GL, Gregoire HM, et al. Automated Forced-Choice Tests of Speech Recognition. J Am Acad Audiol. 2021; 32(9): 606–615. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1733964
Rodríguez-Ferreiro M, Durán-Bouza M, Marrero-Aguiar V. Analysis of the Spanish Auditory Test of Speech in Noise (PAHRE) in a population with hearing loss. Audiol Res. 2024; 14(5): 861–874. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres14050073
Alokaily AO, Alqabbani AF, Aleid A, Alhussaini K. Toward accessible hearing care: The development of a versatile Arabic word-in-noise screening tool: A pilot study. Appl Sci. 2022; 12(23): 12459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312459
Wilson RH, Scherer NJ. A quantitative protocol for calibrating short speech signals (monosyllabic words) based on the 50-ms segment of the voiced phoneme(s) with the maximum root-meansquare amplitude. J Am Acad Audiol. 2025; 36(2): 68–94. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21126
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Rodríguez-Ferreiro M, Serra V. Pruebas de habla en ruido: una revisión de las pruebas disponibles en español. Auditio. 2024; 8: e113. https://doi.org/10.51445/sja.auditio.vol8.2024.113
Sanchez VA, Arnold ML, Moore DR, Clavier O, et al. Speech-in-noise tests: Innovative applications for pediatric patients, underrepresented populations, job fitness, clinical trials, and remote services. J Acoust Soc Am. 2022; 152(4): 2336. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014418
Zapala D, Stamper GC, Bogle JM, Jagger SL, et al. Clinical utility of the standardized word recognition score. Ear Hear. 2024; 45(1): 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001404
Vainutienė V, Ivaška J, Kardelis V, Ivaškienė T, et al. Speech Audiometry: The Development of Lithuanian Bisyllabic Phonemically Balanced Word Lists for Evaluation of Speech Recognition. Appl Sci. 2024; 14(7): 2897. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072897
Paz-Oliveira A, Momensohn-Santos TM, do Carmo MP, Fiore A. Testes de fala no ruído na clínica audiológica – Uma revisão integrativa. Distúrb Comun. 2020; 32(1): 124–139. https://doi.org/10.23925/2176-2724.2020v32i1p124-139
Marcotti FA, Galaz M, Iturriaga O, Aguilar S. Pruebas monoaurales de habla de baja redundancia: Evaluación de la separación/cierre monoaural. Rev. Otorrinolaringol. Cir. Cabeza Cuello. 2021; 81(2): 306-318. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-48162021000200306
Páez Pinilla ATP, Arjona CM, Montiel KPM, Avendaño Díaz EMA. Prueba de discriminación de habla en ruido: Etapa 2: Pilotaje en sujetos con pérdida auditiva neurosensorial simétrica leve a moderada. Areté. 2024; 24(2): 41-49. https://doi.org/10.33881/16572513.art.24205