A comparison of response time and word recognition measures using a word-monitoring and closed-set identification task

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 140-148

  Mackersie, Carol ^a   Neuman, Arlene C ^b   Levitt, Harry ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; RESPONSE TIME; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0032938109     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199904000-00005     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Baer, T., Moore, B. C. J., & Gatehouse, S. (1993). Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: Effects on intelligibility, quality, and response time. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 30, 49-72.
2. Gatehouse, S. (1993). Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 4, 296-306.
3. Gatehouse, S., & Gordon, J. (1990). Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. British Journal of Audiology, 24, 63-68.
4. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using a Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340-347.
6. Hecker, M. H. L., Stevens, K. N., & Williams, C. E. (1966). Measurements of reaction time in intelligibility tests. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 39, 1188-1189.
7. House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Kryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation-testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37, 158-166.
8. Kilborn, K., & Moss, H. (1996). Word monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 689-694.
9. Kruel, E. J., Nixon, J. C., Kryter, K. D., Bell, D. W., & Lang, J. S. (1968). A proposed clinical test of speech discrimination. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 536-552.
10. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (1975). Processing structure of sentence perception. Nature, 257, 784-786.
11. Pisoni, D. B., Manous, L. M., & Dedina, M. J. (1987). Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: Effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 303-320.
12. Pratt, R. L. (1981). On the use of reaction time as a measure of intelligibility. British Journal of Audiology, 15, 253-255.
13. Stark, R., & Montgomery, J. W. (1995). Sentence processing in language-impaired children under conditions of filtering and time compression. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 137-154.
14. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 455-462.
15. Wright, R., Spanner, M., & Martin, M. (1981). Pilot experiments with a reaction time audiometer. British Journal of Audiology, 15, 275-281.