Normal and hearing-impaired word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet and noise

British Journal of Audiology

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 153-164

  Beattie, Randall C ^a   Barr, Tiffany ^a   Roup, Christina ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hearing impaired; Speech in noise; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0030814593     PISSN: 03005364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/03005364000000018     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. American National Standards Institute. American national standard specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1989). New York, NY: Author, 1989.
2. Beattie R. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Dis 1989; 54:20-32
3. Beattie RC, Raffin MJM. Reliability of threshold, slope, and PB Max for monosyllabic words. J Speech Hear Dis 1985;50,166-178.
4. Beattie RC, Warren VG. Relationships among speech threshold, loudness discomfort, comfortable loudness, and PB max in the elderly hearing impaired. Am J Otol 1982; 3: 353-358.
5. Beattie R, Zipp J. Range of intensities yielding PB Max and the threshold for monosyllablic words for hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Dis 1990; 55:417-426.
6. Beattie RC, Edgerton BJ, Svihovec D. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal hearing population. J Speech Hear Dis 1977; 42:60-64.
7. Beattie RC, Svihovec DA, Carmen RE, Kunkel HA. Loudness discomfort level for speech:
8. Comparison of two instructional sets for saturation sound pressure level selection. Ear and Hearing 1980; 1:197-205.
9. Berger KW, Hagberg EN, Rane RL. Prescription of hearing aids -rationale, procedures and results. Kent, OH: Herald Publishing House, 1980.
10. Bruning JL, Kintz BL. Computational Handbook of Statistics 3rd edn. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1987.
11. Carhart R. Monaural and binaural discrimination against competing sentences. Int Audiol 1965; 4:5-10.
12. Carhart R, Tillman TW. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch Otolaryngol 1970; 91:273-279.
13. Cooper J, Cults B. Speech discrimination in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1971; 14:332-337.
14. Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ. Classroom acoustics. In Roeser RJ, Downs MP eds, Auditory Disorders in School Children 3rd edn. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 1995; 219-234.
15. Dillon H. The effect of test difficulty on the sensitivity of speech discrimination tests. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73:336-344.
16. Dirks DD, Kamm CA, Dubno JR, Velde TM. Speech recognition performance at loudness discomfort level. Scand Audiol 1981; 10:239-246.
17. Dirks DD, Morgan DE, Dubno JR. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Dis 1982; 47: 114-123.
18. Dubno JR, Dirks DD. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a nonsense-syllable test - I. Test reliability. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 25:135-141.
19. Dubno JF, Levitt H. Predicting consonant confusions from acoustic analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 1981;69:249-261.
20. Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74:739-743.
21. Edgerton BJ, Danhauer JL. Clinical implications of speech discrimination testing using nonsense stimuli. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
22. Flexer C. Management of hearing in an educational setting. In Alpiner JG, McCarthy PA, eds. Rehabilitative Audiology - Children and Adults, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1993; 176-210.
23. Frank T, Craig CH. Comparison of the Auditec and Rintelmann recordings of the NU-6. J Speech Hear Dis 1984; 49:267-271.
24. Gatehouses. Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (Supplement): 57S-65S.
25. Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1994; 15:30-49.
26. Gatehouse S, Haggard MP. The effects of airbone gap and presentation level on word identification. Ear Hear 1987; 8:140-146.
27. Hagerman, B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984;13:57-63.
28. Hall III JW. Diagnostic applications of speech audiometry. Seminars Hear 1983; 4:179-204.
29. Jerger J, Hayes D. Hearing aid evaluation-clinical experience with a new philosophy. Arch Otolaryngol 1976; 102:214-225.
30. Jerger S, Jerger J. Auditory Disorders-A Manual for Clinical Evaluation. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1981.
31. Kalikow DN, Stevens KM, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337-1351.
32. Loven FC, Hawkins DB. Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22 word lists presented in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear 1983; 4:91-97.
33. Moore BCJ, Johnson JS, Clark TM, Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992a; 13: 349-370.
34. Moore BCJ, Lynch C, Stone MA. Effects of fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 1992b; 26:369-379.
35. Morales-Garcia C, Poole J. Masked speech audiometry in central deafness. Acta Otolaryngologic 1972; 74:307-316.
36. Mueller HG, Bright KE. Monosyllabic procedures in central testing. In Katz J. ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994; 222-238.
37. Nabelek AK, Nabelek IV. Room acoustics and speech perception. In Katz J. ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994; 624-637.
38. Nelson DA, Chaiklin JB. Writedown versus talk-back scoring and scoring bias in speech discrimination testing. J Speech Hear Res 1970; 13:645-654.
39. Olsen WO, Noffsinger D. Comparison of one new and three old tests of auditory adaptation. Arch Otolaryngol 1974; 99:94-99.
40. Owens E, Schubert ED. Development of the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Res 1976; 20:463-474.
41. Pearsons KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. Speech levels in various noise environments. Report No. EPA-600/1-77-025, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Ecological Effects, Office of Research and Development, 1976.
42. Penrod JP. Speech threshold and word recognition/discrimination testing. In Katz J. ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994; 147-164.
43. Plomp R. Acoustical aspects of cocktail parties. Acustica 1977;38:186-191.
44. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29:146-154.
45. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66: 1333-1342.
46. Schow RL, Gatehouse S. Fundamental issues of self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (Supplement): 6S-16S.
47. Schwartz DM, Surr RK, Montgomery AA, Prosek RA, Waiden BE. Performance of high frequency impaired listeners with conventional and extended high frequency amplification. Audiol 1979; 18:157-174.
48. Schiavetti N, Sitler RW, Metz DE, Houde RA. Prediction of contextual speech intelligibility from isolated word intelligibility measures. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27:623-626.
49. Speaks C, Karmen JL, Benitez L. Effect of a competing message on synthetic sentence identification. J Speech Hear Res 1967; 10:390-396.
50. Stecker NA. Central auditory processing: Implications in audiology. In Katz J, Stecker NA, Henderson D. eds. Central Auditory Processing: A Transdisciplinary View. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1992; 117-127.
51. Studdert-Kennedy M, Shankweiler D. Hemispheric specialization for speech perception. J AcoustSoc Am 1970; 48:579-594.
52. Thornton AR, Raffln MJ. Speech-discrimination scores, modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21:507-518.
53. Webster JC, Snell KB. Noise levels and the speech intelligibility of teachers in classrooms. J Rehab Audiol 1983; 16:234-255.