Speech recognition in noise: Development of a computerized test and preparation of test material

Scandinavian Audiology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 29-34

  Laitakari, Kyösti ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Computer; Hearing loss; Speech audiometry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; HUMAN; NOISE; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MICROCOMPUTER; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; NOISE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 0029689147     PISSN: 01050397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/01050399609047552     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Dirks DD, Morgan DE, Dubno JR. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 47: 114-23.
2. Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 1982; 11: 79-87.
3. Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13: 57-63.
4. Hagerman B, Kinnefors C. Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech thresholds in quiet and noise. 1993; Report TA127, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm
5. Hawkins JE, Stevens SS. The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1950; 22: 6-13.
6. Jayaram M, Baguley DM, Moffat DA. Speech in noise: a practical test procedure. J Laryngol Otol 1992; 106: 105-10.
7. Jokinen K. Presbyacusis. VI. Masking of speech. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1973; 76: 426-30.
8. Laitakari K. Microcomputer and sound card: flexibility for audiometry. Scand Audiol 1993; 22: 195-6.
9. Lutman ME. Speech tests in quiet and noise as a measure of auditory processing. In: Martin M, ed Speech audiometry. London, New York, Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 1987; 63-73.
10. Lutman ME, Brown EJ, Coles RRA. Self-reported disability and handicap in the population in relation to pure tone threshold, age, sex and type of hearing loss. Br J Audiol 1986; 21: 45-58.
11. Palva T. Finnish speech audiometry. Methods and clinical applications. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1952; (Suppl 101): 1-128.
12. Palva T. Studies of hearing for pure tones and speech in noise. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1955; 45 : 231-43.
13. Pekkarinen E. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech discrimination. Thesis. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. Ser D 1988; 35: 1-113.
14. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 63: 533-49.
15. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29: 146-54.
16. Plomp R, Duquesnoy AJ. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise with and without a hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1982: 11 (Suppl 15): 95-111.
17. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979; 18: 43-52.
18. Salmivalli A, Jauhiainen T, Kärjä J, Raivio M. Kuulontut-kimus ja kuntoutus. Helsinki: Instrumentarium Oy, 1984 (in Finnish).
19. van Tasell DJ, Yanz JL. Speech recognition threshold in noise: effects of hearing loss, frequency response, and speech materials. J Speech Hear Res 1987; 30: 377-86.