Speech intelligibility measured by adaptive maximum-likelihood procedure

Speech Communication

Volumn 42, Issue 3-4, 2004, Pages 313-328

  Zera, Jan ^a,b  

^a National Research Institute   (Poland)

^b Akademia Muzyczna im Fryderyka Chopina w Warszawie   (Poland)

Author keywords

Maximum likelihood adaptive procedure; MRT test; Speech intelligibility tests

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HEARING AIDS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH COMMUNICATION;

MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD ADAPTIVE PROCEDURES; MODIFIED RHYME TESTS (MRT); SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY TEST;

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 1842476675     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.specom.2003.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ANSI S3.2, 1989. American National Standard. Method for measuring the intelligibility of speech over communication systems.
2. Bode D.L., Carhart R. Measurements of articulation functions using adaptive test procedures. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. AU-21:1973;196-201.
3. Bronkhorst A.W., Plomp R. Effect of multiple speech like maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 92:1992;3132-3139.
4. Dai H. Signal-frequency uncertainty in spectral-shape discrimination: psychometric functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 96:1994;1646-1657.
5. Dai H. On measuring psychometric functions: a comparison of the constant-stimulus and adaptive up-down methods. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 98:1995;3135-3139.
6. Dreschler W.A., Plomp R. Relation between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. I. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 68:1980;1608-1615.
7. Dreschler W.A., Plomp R. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 78:1985;1261-1270.
8. Foster J.R., Haggard M.P. The Four Alternative Auditory Feature test (FAAF) - linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br. J. Audiol. 21:1987;165-174.
9. Gower D.W. Jr., Casali J.G. Speech intelligibility and protective effectiveness of selected active noise reduction and conventional communication headsets. Human Factors. 36:1994;350-367.
10. Green D.M. Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 87:1990;2662-2674.
11. Green D.M. A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 93:1993;2096-2105.
12. Green D.M. Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 97:1995;3749-3760.
13. Green D.M., Birdsall T.G. The effect of vocabulary size on articulation score. Swets J.A. Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers. 1964;609-619 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, London, Sydney.
14. Green D.M., Dai H. Probability of being correct with 1 of. M orthogonal signals Percept. Psychophys. 49:1991;100-101.
15. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. 1966;John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, London, Sydney.
16. Hall J.L. Hybrid adaptive procedure for estimation of psychometric functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 69:1981;1763-1769.
17. House A.S., Williams C.W., Hecker M.H.L., Kryter K.D. Articulation testing methods: Consonant differentiation with a closed-response set. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 37:1965;158-166.
18. ISO/TR4870, 1991. ISO Technical Report. Acoustics - the construction and calibration of speech intelligibility tests.
19. Laming D., Marsh D. Some performance tests of QUEST on measurements of vibrotactile thresholds. Percept. Psychophys. 44:1988;99-107.
20. Leek M.R., Hanna T.E., Marshall L. Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Percept. Psychophys. 51:1992;247-256.
21. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 49:1971;467-477.
22. Levitt H., Rabiner L.R. Use of sequential strategy in intelligibility testing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 39:1967;609-612.
23. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 1991;Cambridge University Press.
24. MIL, 1989. Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities, DOD, USA, MIL-STD-1472D.
25. Nilsson M., Soli S.D., Sullivan J.A. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 95:1994;1085-1099.
26. Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology. 18:1979;43-52.
27. Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Speech reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 66:1979;1333-1342.
28. Shelton B.R., Picardi M.C., Green D.M. Comparison of three adaptive psychophysical procedures. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 71:1982;1527-1533.
29. Smoorenburg G. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 91:1992;421-437.
30. Voiers W.D. Evaluating processed speech using the diagnostic rhyme test. Speech Technol. 1983;30-39.
31. Watson A.B., Pelli D.G. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept. Psychophys. 33:1983;113-120.
32. Zhou B., Green D.M. Reliability of pure-tone thresholds at high frequencies. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 98:1995;828-836.