​The SMRT is a measure of spectral resolution that correlates with speech measures (Holden et al., 2016; Lawler et al., 2017; Zhou, 2017, Jeddi et al., 2019).

Conducting the test is quick and easy and the software is available for free download from this webpage.

Update Sept 23, 2018
Note an erratum was released (pdf) in which:
  • A Matlab script was released to allow generation of SMRT stimuli (here)
  • Equation 1 in the original paper has been correctly replaced as:
Picture

Update: May 18, 2017
New version of SMRT (1.1.3) is released.
  • Added speech in noise predictions based on SMRT score based on Holden et al., 2016.
  • Fixed bugs when using SMRT on a computer not using English. 
    • Specifically, the software only ran correctly when periods were used for decimals and commas were used for thousands.  It should now work correct when numbers are represented as 4.000,3 (most of Europe) or 4 000,3 (e.g. Russia).
  • Added ability to change prompt “Which sound is different?” to allow testing in languages other than English.
  • Changed “Subject Code Label” to “Subject Code Label or MRN” to clarify that clinics can use a medical record number instead of a subject code.
  • Added test duration to the log file.
 
 
Update:  November 22, 2016
We have just found a new paper (Holden et al., 2016) which shows that SMRT correlates significantly with CNC words in quiet, AzBio in quiet, AzBio in Noise,  and HINT sentences in R-Space for cochlear implant users. This result has now been replicated in Zhou (2017).

BUG WARNING FOR EUROPEAN COMPUTERS (Version 1.0 and 1.1 only):
There is a bug running the SMRT on computers which display decimals with a comma (i.e. 24,3).  It can be fixed by switching the PC to use a period. Instructions on how to do so are here. (note: this bug was fixed in SMRT 1.1.3)
 


Change log


Version 1.1.3
  • Fixed bugs when using SMRT on a computer not using English.  Specifically, the software only ran correctly when periods were used for decimals and commas were used for thousands.  It should now work correct when numbers are represented as 4.000,3 (most of Europe) or 4 000,3 (e.g. Russia).
  • Added speech in noise predictions
  • Added ability to change prompt “Which sound is different?” to allow testing in languages other than English.
  • Changed “Subject Code Label” to “Subject Code Label or MRN” to clarify that clinics can use a medical record number instead of a subject code.
  • Added test duration to the log file.
 
Version 1.1
  • Fixed randomization bug
  • Changed Abort button to Pause Button.  When paused, the operator can now choose to abort or continue.
  • Added visual feedback that a button has been pressed.
 
Version 1.0
  • Initial Release
 
Download
SMRT 1.1.3: here (Google Drive)
or here (NOT WORKING tigerspeech.com)  
SMRT 1.1: here
SMRT 1.0: here

MATLAB Script to Generate Stimuli: here
Copyright 2013, 2016 David Landsberger and Justin Aronoff

Software is provided as-is with no warranty. There is no charge for using this software. If you use this test, please cite Aronoff, J.M. and Landsberger, D.M. (2013). The development of a modified spectral ripple test. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2),EL217-EL222 pdf

Many thanks to the Emily Fu Foundation

If you find this software useful, please consider making a donation to School on Wheels in honor of the SMRT test / Emily Fu Foundation.


​Papers using SMRT

  1. Aronoff, J.M., Landsberger, D.M. 2013. The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J Acoust Soc Am 134, EL217-22. pdf
  2. Aronoff, J.M., Stelmach, J., Padilla, M., Landsberger, D.M. 2016. Interleaved Processors Improve Cochlear Implant Patients' Spectral Resolution. Ear Hear 37, e85-90. pdf
  3. de Jong, M. A. M., Briaire, J., J., Frijns, J. H. M. 2017. Take-Home Trial Comparing Fast Fourier Transformation-Based and Filter Bank-Based Cochlear Implant Speech Coding Strategies, BioMed Research International, 7. pdf
  4. de Jong, M. A. M., Briaire, J. J., and Frijns, J. H. M. 2017. Learning Effects in Psychophysical Tests of Spectral and Temporal Resolution, Ear and Hearing link
  5. de Jong, M. A. M., Briaire, J. J., and Frijns, J. H. M. 2019. "Dynamic current focusing: A novel approach to loudness coding in cochlear implants," 40, 34-44. link
  6. de Jong, M. A. M., Briaire, J. J., van der Woude, S. F. S., and Frijns, J. H. M. 2019. "Dynamic current focusing for loudness encoding in cochlear implants: a take-home trial," International Journal of Audiology, 1-12. link
  7. DiNino, M. and J.G. Arenberg, Age-Related Performance on Vowel Identification and the Spectral-temporally Modulated Ripple Test in Children With Normal Hearing and With Cochlear Implants. Trends in Hearing, 2018. 22: p. 2331216518770959. link
  8. Friedmann, D. R., Asfour, L., Shapiro, W. H., Roland Jr, J. T., and Waltzman, S. B. 2018. "Performance with an Auditory Brainstem Implant and Contralateral Cochlear Implant in Pediatric Patients," Audiology and Neurotology 23, 216-221. link
  9. Goehring, T, Archer-Boyd, A., Deeks, J. M., Arenberg, J. G., Carlyon, R. P. 2019. "A Site-Selection Strategy based on Polarity Sensitivity for Cochlear Implants: Effects on Spectro-Temporal Resolution and Speech Perception" PsyArXiv Preprints. link
  10. Harris, M. S., Boyce, L., Pisoni, D. B., Shafiro, V., and Moberly, A. C. 2017. "The Relationship Between Environmental Sound Awareness and Speech Recognition Skills in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users," Otology & Neurotology 38, e308-e314. link
  11. Holden, L. K., Firszt, J. B., Reeder, R. M., Uchanski, R. M., Dwyer, N. Y., and Holden, T. A. 2016. "Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani," Otol Neurotol 37, 1662-1668. link
  12. Jeddi, Z., Lotfi, Y., Moossavi, A., Bakhshi, E., & Hashemi, S. B. 2019. "Correlation between Auditory Spectral Resolution and Speech Perception in Children with Cochlear Implants." Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences link
  13. ​Kirby, B.J., Browning, J.M., Brennan, M.A., Spratford, M., McCreery, R.W. 2015. Spectro-temporal modulation detection in children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138, EL465-EL468. link
  14. Landsberger, D. M., Padilla, M., Martinez, A. S., and Eisenberg, L. S. 2017. "Spectral-Temporal Modulated Ripple Discrimination by Children With Cochlear Implants," Ear Hear. pdf
  15. Lawler, M., Yu, J., and Aronoff, J. M. 2017. “Comparison of the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test With the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in Cochlear Implant Users”, Ear Hear 38, 760-766. link
  16. Lifshitz-Ben-Basat, A., and Fostick, L. 2019. "Music-related abilities among readers with dyslexia," Annals of Dyslexia. link
  17. Luo, X., Kolberg, C., Pulling Kathryn, R., et al. Psychoacoustic and Demographic Factors for Speech Recognition of Older Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. link
  18. Mesnildrey, Q., Venail, F., Carlyon, R. P., and Macherey, O. 2020. "Polarity sensitivity as a potential correlate of neural degeneration in cochlear implant users," J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. link
  19. Moberly, A. C., Vasil, K. J., Wucinich, T. L., Safdar, N., Boyce, L., Roup, C., Holt, R. F., Adunka, O. F., Castellanos, I., Shafiro, V., Houston, D. M., and Pisoni, D. B. (2018). "How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?," Laryngoscope 128 Suppl 5. link
  20. Pham, C. Q., Kapolowicz, M. R., Metherate, R., and Zeng, F.-G. (2019). "Nicotine enhances auditory processing in healthy and normal-hearing young adult nonsmokers," Psychopharmacology. link
  21. Vickers, D., Degun, A., Canas, A., Stainsby, T., Vanpoucke, F. 2016. Deactivating Cochlear Implant Electrodes Based on Pitch Information for Users of the ACE Strategy. Adv Exp Med Biol 894, 115-23. link
  22. Zhou, N. 2017. Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141, EL243-EL248. link