Tests of speech perception abilities

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 392-397

  Mackersie, Carol L ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVALUATION; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0036799802     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00020840-200210000-00012     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Mendel LL, Danhauer JL: Audiologic Evaluation and Management: Speech Perception Assessment. San Diego: Singular Publishing;1997.
2. Boothroyd A: Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am 1968b, 43:362-367.
3. Tyler R: Speech perception by children. In Cochlear Implants. Edited by Tyler R. San Diego: Singular Publishing;1993:191-256.
4. Luce P, Pisoni D: Recognizing spoken words: the Neighborhood Activation Model, Ear Hear 1998, 19:1-36.
5. Humes L, Amos N, Wynne M: Issues in the assessment of central auditory processing disorders. In Children with Hearing Impairment: Contemporary Trends. Edited by Bess FH. Nashville: Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center Press;1998:127-136.
6. Thornton A, Raffin M: Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978, 21:507-518.
7. Hood J, Poole J: Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. Audiology 1980, 19:434-455.
8. Brandy W: Reliability of voice tests of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res 1966, 9:461-465.
9. Stach B: Word-recognition testing: why not do it well? Hear J 1998, 51:11-16.
10. Wiley T, Stoppenbach D, Feldhake L, et al.: Audiologic practices: what is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol 1995, 4:26-34.
11. Boothroyd A: Developments in speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 1968, 2:3-10.
12. Gelfand S: Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998, 41:1088-1102.
13. Olsen WO, Van Tasell DJ, Speaks CE: Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences. Ear Hear 1997, 18:175-186.
14. Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J: Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994, 95:1085-1099.
15. QuickSin Speech in Noise Test Version 1.3 [computer software]. Elkgrove, IL: Etymotic Research;2001.
16. Killion M: The SIN report: circuits haven't solved the hearing-in-noise problem. Hear J 1997, 50:28-32.
17. Downs DW, Crum MA: Processing demands during auditory learning under degraded listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res 1978, 21:702-714.
18. Mackersie C, Boothroyd A, Prida T: Use of a simultaneous sentence perception test to enhance sensitivity to ease of listening. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000, 43:675-682.
19. Wilson R, Carter A: Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials. J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 12:7-14.
20. Boothroyd A: Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment (CASPA) Version 3.0 [computer software]. San Diego: A Boothroyd;1999.
21. Mackersie C, Boothroyd A, Minniear D: Evaluation of a computer-assisted speech perception assessment test (CASPA). J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 13:38-49.
22. McCullough J, Wilson R, Birck J, et al.: A multimedia approach for estimating speech recognition of multilingual clients. Am J Audiol 1995, 3:19-22.
23. McCullough J, Wilson R: Performance on a Spanish picture-identification task using a multimedia format. J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 12:254-260.
24. Alekxsandrovsky I, McCullough J, Wilson R: Development of a suprathreshold word recognition test for Russian-speaking patients. J Am Acad Audiol 1998, 9:417-425.
25. Flynn M, Dowell R: Speech perception in a communicative context: an investigation using question/answer pairs. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999, 42:540-552.
26. Jerger J, Greenwald R, Wambacq I, et al.: Toward a more ecologically valid measure of speech understanding in background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2000, 11:273-282.
27. Pittman A, Wiley T: Recognition of speech produced in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001, 44:487-496.
28. Saunders G, Cienkowski K: A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2002, 13:38-49.
29. Humes L, Garner C, Wilson D, et al.: Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001, 44:469-486.
30. Kirk K, Pisoni D, Osberger M: Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995, 16:470-481.
31. Sommers M, Iler Kirk K, Pisoni D: Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners, I. The effects of response format. Ear Hear 1997, 18:89-99.
32. Dirks D, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A, et al.: Examination of the neighborhood activation theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 2001, 22:1-13.
33. Dirks D, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A: Effects of lexical factors on word recognition among normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 12:233-244.
34. Carter A, Wilson R: Lexical effects on dichotic word recognition in young and elderly listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 12:86-100.
35. Bell T, Wilson R: Sentence recognition materials based on frequency of word use and lexical confusability. J Am Acad Audiol 2001, 12:514-522.
36. Luxford W, Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Committee on Hearing: Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngology 2001, 124:125-126.
37. Sargent E, Herrmann B, Hollenbeak C, et al.: The minimum speech test battery in profound unilateral hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2001, 22:480-486.