Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 294-306

  Eisenberg, Laurie S ^a,c   Dirks, Donald D ^a,b   Gornbein, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0030777169     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199708000-00004     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allen, J. B., Hall., J. L., & Jeng, P. S. (1990). Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB) - A procedure for the assessment of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 745-753.
2. American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1989). New York: ANSI.
3. American National Standards Institute. (1992). Methods for the calculation of the articulation index (ANSI S3.79-199x, Draft V2.2). New York: ANSI.
4. Anderson, N. H. (1974). Algebraic models in perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception, Volume II: Psychophysical judgment and measurement, (pp. 215-298). New York: Academic Press.
5. Balfour, P. B., & Hawkins, D. B. (1992). A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. Ear and Hearing, 13, 331-339.
6. Bentler, R. A., Niebuhr, D. P., Getta, J. P., & Anderson, C. V. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 820-831.
7. Braida, L. D., Lim, J. S., Berliner, J. E., Durlach, N. I., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Purks, S. R. (1984). Intensity perception. XIII. Perceptual anchor model of context-coding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 722-731.
8. Brown, M. L. (1982). Robust line estimation with errors in both variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 71-79.
9. Byrne, D., & Cotton, S. (1988). Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 178-186.
10. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 7, 257-265.
11. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Rivera, I. M. (1991). Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 904-915.
12. Cox, R. M., & McDaniel, D. M. (1984). Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: Application to hearing aid selection. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 758-766.
13. Dirks, D. D., Ahlstrom, J., & Noffsinger, D. (1993). Preferred frequency response for two- and three-channel amplification systems. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 30, 305-317.
14. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
15. Eisenberg, L. S., & Dirks, D. D. (1995). Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1157-1167.
16. Fabry, D. A., & Schum, D. J. (1994). The role of subjective measurement techniques in hearing aid fittings. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings, (pp. 136-155). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
17. Fortune, T. W., & Preves, D. A. (1992). Hearing aid saturation and aided loudness discomfort. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 175-185.
18. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90-119.
19. Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. N., & Hagerman, B. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 166-177.
20. Gescheider, G. A. (1988). Psychophysical scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 169-200.
21. Hoel, P. G., Port, S. C., & Stone, C. J. (1971). Introduction to probability theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Jerger, S., & Jerger, J. (1984). Pediatric Speech Intelligibility Test. St. Louis: Auditec of St. Louis.
23. Kates, J. M., & Kozma-Spytek, L. (1994). Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3586-3594.
24. Keidser, G. (1995). The relationship between listening conditions and alternative amplification schemes for multiple memory hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 16, 575-586.
25. Kuk, F. K. (1992). Evaluation of the efficacy of a multimemory hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3, 338-348.
26. Kuk, F. K. (1994). Use of paired comparisons in hearing aid fittings. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings, (pp. 108-135). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
27. Kuk, F. K., & Pape, N. (1993). Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening situations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 168-177.
28. Levitt, H. (1996). A method for analyzing rating scale data (Abstract). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 2495.
29. Levitt, H., Sullivan, J. A., Neuman, A. C., & Rubin-Spitz, J. A. (1987). Experiments with a programmable master hearing aid. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 24, 29-54.
30. Mellers, B. A., & Cooke, A. D. J. (1996). The role of task and context in preference measurement. Psychological Science, 7, 76-82.
31. Neuman, A. C., Bakke, M. H., Hellman, S., & Levitt, H. (1994). Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: Paired-comparison judgments of quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 1471-1478.
32. Neuman, A. C., Bakke, M. H., MacKersie, C., Hellman, S., & Levitt, H. (1995). Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: Paired-comparison judgments of quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 3182-3187.
33. Parducci, A. (1974). Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception, Volume II: Psychophysical judgment and measurement, (pp. 127-141). New York: Academic Press.
34. Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496-516.
35. Pavlovic, C. V. (1987). Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in intelligibility predictions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 413-422.
36. Preminger, J. E., & Van Tasell, D. J. (1995). Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 726-736.
37. Punch, J. L., & Parker, C. A. (1981). Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 366-374.
38. Purdy, S. C., & Pavlovic, C. V. (1992). Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling, and paired-comparison judgments of speech intelligibility by older listeners. Audiology, 31, 254-271.
39. Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York: Academic Press.
40. Stelmachowicz, P. G., Lewis, D. E., & Carney, E. (1994). Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 712-719.
41. Studebaker, G. A., Bisset, J. D., Van Ort, D. M., & Hoffnung, S. (1982). Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 80-92.
42. Surr, R. K., & Fabry, D. A. (1991). Comparison of three hearing aid fittings using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) Test. Ear and Hearing, 12, 32-38.
43. Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
44. Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 38, 369-389.
45. Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
46. van Buuren, R. A., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1995). Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 211-221.
47. Zerlin, S. (1962). A new approach to hearing aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 370-376.