Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 175-188

  Olsen, Wayne O ^a   Van Tasell, Dianne J ^b   Speaks, Charles E ^b  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSONANT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHONEME; VOWEL; WORD RECOGNITION; ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PHONETICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0030904843     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199706000-00001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. American National Standards Institute (1989). American national standard specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1989). New York: ANSI.
2. Bilger, R. C. (1984), Speech recognition test development. In E. Elkins (Ed.), Speech recognition by the hearing impaired (pp. 2-7). ASHA Reports, 14.
3. Bilger, R. C., Neutzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Rzeczowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 32-48.
4. Boothroyd, A. (1968). Developments in speech audiometry. Sound, 2, 3-10.
5. Boothroyd, A. (1985). Evaluation of speech production of the hearing impaired: Some benefits of forced choice testing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 185-196.
6. Boothroyd, A. (1993). Speech perception, sensorineural hearing loss, and hearing aids. In G. A. Studebaker & I. Hochberg (Eds.), Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance (pp. 277-299). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7. Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 101-114.
8. Egan, J. (1948). Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope, 58, 955-991.
9. Elberling, C., Ludvigsen, C., & Lyregaard, P. E. (1989). DANTALE: A new Danish speech material. Scandinavian Audiology, 18, 169-176.
10. Fletcher, H. (1950). A method for calculating hearing for speech from an audiogram. Acta Oto-laryngologica. Supplement (Stockholm), 90, 26-37.
11. Fry, D. B. (1961). Word and sentence tests for use in speech audiometry. Lancet, 2, 197-199.
12. Hirsh, I. J., Davis, H., Silverman, S. R., Reynolds, E. G., Eldert, E., & Benson, R. W. (1952). Development of materials for speech audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 17, 321-337.
13. House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Kryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation testing methods. Consonantal differentiation in a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158-166.
14. Jerger, J., & Jerger, S. (1971). Diagnostic significance of PB word functions. Archives of Otolaryngology, 93, 573-580.
15. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
16. Keidser, G. (1993). Normative data in quiet and in noise for "DANTALR" - a Danish speech material. Scandinavian Audiology, 22, 231-236.
17. Lehiste, I., & Peterson, G. E. (1959). Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 280-286.
18. Levitt, H., & Resnick, S. B. (1978). Speech reception by the hearing impaired: Methods of testing and development of new tests. Scandinavian Audiology, (Suppl. 6), 107-130.
19. Markides, A. (1978). Whole-word scoring versus phoneme scoring in speech audiometry. British Journal of Audiology, 12, 40-46.
20. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329-335.
21. Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition of young children and older adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2705-2715.
22. Obier, L. K., Nicholas, M., Albert, M. L., & Woodward, S. (1985). On comprehension across the adult life span. Cortex, 21, 273-280.
23. O'Neill, J. J. (1957). Recognition of intelligibility test materials in context and isolation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 22, 87-90.
24. Owens, E., & Schubert, E. D. (1977). Development of the California Consonant Test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 463-474.
25. Raffin, M. J. M., & Schafer, D. (1980). Application of a probability model based on the binomial distribution to speech discrimination scores. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 570-575.
26. Raffin, M. J. M., & Thornton, A. R. (1980). Confidence levels for differences between speech discrimination scores. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 5-18.
27. Resnick, S. B., Dubno, J. R., Hoffnung, S., & Levitt, H. (1976). Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58(Suppl. 1), 114.
28. Silverman, S. R., & Hirsh, I. J. ( 1955). Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 64, 1234-1244.
29. Stevenson, P. W. (1975). Responses to speech audiometry and phonemic discrimination patterns by the elderly. Audiology, 14, 185-231.
30. Stevenson, P. W., & Martin, M. C. (1977). Adaptive speech audiometry in space and in hearing impaired subjects. Audiology, 16, 110-123.
31. Thorndike, D. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University Press.
32. Thornton, A., & Raffin, M. J. M. (1978). Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 507-518.
33. Tillman, T. W., & Carhart, R. (1966). An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words, Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Technical Report.