Is It Okay to Use Compressed NU-6 Files for Clinical Word Recognition Testing?

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of file compression on clinically measured word recognition scores obtained using the Northwestern University Test Number Six (NU-6; Auditec recording) materials.METHOD:Participants were 86 adults (N = 170 ears; M age = 65.5). The 25 most difficult words from each of four NU-6 test lists were used to measure word recognition. Two lists were compressed using a freely available Advanced Audio Coding compression algorithm and two were not. Word recognition was measured in each ear using one compressed file and one uncompressed file. Percent correct scores were calculated in each test condition and log transformed for analyses. Clinically meaningful differences between uncompressed and compressed scores were examined using 95% critical difference ranges. The effects of file compression on word recognition scores were examined in the context of multiple potential confounding effects, including age and degree of hearing loss, using linear mixed-effects models (LMMs).RESULTS:Differences between compressed and uncompressed scores in a given ear exceeded the 95% critical difference range in about 7% of cases, approximating the 5% of expected cases occurring due to chance. Likewise, LMM results revealed no significant effect of file compression on clinically measured NU-6 word recognition scores and no significant interactions between compression effects and age or degree of hearing loss.CONCLUSIONS:While the original uncompressed audio files are clearly the most appropriate stimuli for clinical purposes, our study results suggest that file compression, even at an aggressive 64 kilobits per second, does not have a statistically significant, or clinically meaningful, effect on word recognition scores when measured using these Auditec materials.