Subjective judgments of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent Speech Intelligibility Index predictions

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 327-339

  Eisenberg, Laurie S ^a,c   Dirks, Donald D ^d   Takayanagi, Sumiko ^b   Martinez, Amy Schaefer ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Category rating; Clarity; Intelligibility; Subjective judgments

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NOISE; PREDICTION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0031596575     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4102.327     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1969). Methods for the calculation of the articulation index (ANSI S3.5-1969). New York: ANSI.
2. American National Standards Institute. (1993). Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index (ANSI S3.79-199x, Draft V3.0). New York: ANSI.
3. American National Standards Institute. (1996). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: ANSI.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Chung, K., Studebaker, G., & Sherbecoe, R. (1996). Measured and predicted loudness balance of spectrally altered speech. Presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Seattle, WA.
7. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. E., & 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.
8. Cox, R. M., Matesich, J. S., & Moore, J. N. (1988). Distribution of short-term rms levels in conversational speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1100-1103.
9. 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.
10. DePaolis, R. A., Janota, C. P., & Frank, T. (1996). Frequency importance functions for words, sentences, and continuous discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 714-723.
11. Dirks, D. D. (1995). Effects of output limitors on speech quality and intelligibility. Carhart Memorial Lecture presented at the American Auditory Society, Dallas, TX.
12. Dirks. D. D., Bell, T. S., Rossman, R. N., & Kincaid, G. E. (1986). Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 82-92.
13. Dirks, D. D., Dubno, J. R., & Bell, T. S. (1990). Problems in the prediction of speech recognition among normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88 (Supplement 1), S32.
14. Dunn, H. K., & White, S. D. (1940). Statistical measurements on conversational speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 11, 278-288.
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. Eisenberg, L. S., Dirks, D. D., & Gornbein, J. A. (1997). Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear and Hearing, 18, 294-306.
17. Eisenberg, L. S., & Levitt, H. (1991). Paired comparison judgments for hearing aid selection in children. Ear and Hearing, 12, 417-430.
18. Fletcher, H., & Galt, R. H. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 89-151.
19. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90-119.
20. Gabrielsson, A., & Hagerman, B. (1993). Subjective correlates of the acoustical characteristics of sound-reproducing systems. In G. A. Studebaker & I. Hochberg (Eds.), Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance (2nd ed., pp. 301-314). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
21. 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.
22. Hagerman, B., & Gabrielsson, A. (1985). Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids. Scandinavian Audiology, 14, 109-111.
23. Harris, R. W., & Goldstein, D. P. (1979). Effects of room reverberation upon hearing aid quality judgments. Audiology, 18, 253-262.
24. Harris, R. W., & Goldstein, D. P. (1985). Hearing aid quality judgments in reverberant and nonreverberant environments using a magnitude estimation procedure. Audiology, 24, 32-43.
25. 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.
26. Lawson, G. D., & Chial, M. R. (1982). Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal-and impaired-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 1781-1787.
27. 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.
28. Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
29. Parducci, A. (1974). Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.). Handbook of perception, Volume II: Psychophysical judgments and measurement (pp. 127-141). New York: Academic Press.
30. 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.
31. Pavlovic, C. V., Rossi, M., & Espesser, R. (1990). Use of the magnitude estimation technique for assessing the performance of text-to-speech synthesis systems. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 373-382.
32. Pavlovic, C. V., & Studebaker, G. A. (1984). An evaluation of some assumptions underlying the articulation index. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75, 1606-1612.
33. Preminger, J. E., & Van Tasell, D. J. (1995a). Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 714-725.
34. Preminger, J. E., & Van Tasell, D. J. (1995b). Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 726-736.
35. Punch, J. L. (1978). Quality judgments of hearing aid-processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners. Journal of the American Audiology Society, 3, 179-188.
36. Punch, J. L., & Howard, M. T. (1978). Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech. Journal of the American Auditory Society, 4, 69-76.
37. 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.
38. Sherbecoe, R. L., & Studebaker, G. A. (1990). Regression equations for the transfer functions of ANSI S3.5-1969. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2482-2483.
39. 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.
40. Studebaker, G. A., Pavlovic, C. V., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1987). A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 81, 1130-1138.
41. Studebaker, G. A., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1988). Magnitude estimations of the intelligibility and quality of speech in noise. Ear and Hearing, 9, 259-267.
42. Tecca, J. E., & Goldstein, D. P. (1984). Effect of low-frequency hearing aid response on four measures of speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 5, 22-29.
43. 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.
44. Witter, H. L., & Goldstein, G. P. (1971). Quality judgments of hearing aid transduced speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 312-322.
45. Zerlin, S. (1962). A new approach to hearing aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 370-376.
46. Zwicker, E., Fastl H., & Dallmayr, C. (1984). BASIC-Program for calculating the loudness of sounds from their 1/3-oct band spectra according to ISO 532 B. Acustica, 55, 63-67.