Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 144-156

  Wagener, Kirsten Carola ^a   Brand, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adaptive level adjustment; Continuous noise; Fluctuating noise; Interfering noise; Noise presentation level; Procedure influence; Sentence test in noise; Speech intelligibility; Speech reception threshold (SRT); Stationary noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY MASKING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTINUOUS NOISE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FLUCTUATING NOISE; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INTERFERING NOISE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; STATIONARY NOISE;

ADULT; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 18844449425     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500057517     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Arlinger, S. 1998. Clinical Assessment of Modern Hearing Aids. Scand Audiol, 27(Suppl. 49), 50-53.
2. Beattie, R.C. 1989. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord, 54, 20-32.
3. Brand, T. & Hohmann, V. 2001. Effect of Hearing Loss, Center Frequency and Bandwidth on the Shape of Loudness Functions in Categorical Loudness Scaling. Audiology, 40(2), 92-103.
4. Brand, T. & Hohmann, V. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112(4), 1597-1604.
5. Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(6), 2801-2810.
6. Bronkhorst, A.W., Brand, T. & Wagener, K. 2002. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(6), 2874-2886.
7. Byrne, B., Dillon, H., Tran, K., Arlinger, S., Wilbraham, K., et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(4), 2108-2120.
8. Dreschler, W.A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C. & Westermann, S. 2001. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology, 40(3), 148-157.
9. Droogendijk, M. & Verschuure, H. 2000. Inventory and usage of audiological procedures in Europe. Zeitschrift für Audiologie, Suppl. III, 121-124.
10. Dubno, J.R., Dirks, D.D. & Morgan, D.E. 1984. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 76(1), 87-96.
11. Duquesnoy, A.J. 1983a. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 74(3), 739-743.
12. Duquesnoy, A.J. 1983b. The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 74(4), 1136-1144.
13. Duquesnoy, A.J. & Plomp, R. 1983. The effect of a hearing aid on the speech-reception threshold of hearing-impaired listeners in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 73(6), 2166-2173.
14. Eisenberg, L.S., Dirks, D.D. & Bell, T.S. 1995. Speech Recognition in Amplitude-Modulated Noise of Listeners With Normal and Listeners With Impaired Hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 222-233.
15. Festen, J.M. & Plomp, R. 1990. Effect of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88(4), 1725-1736.
16. Goshorn, E.L. & Studebaker, G.A. 1994. Effects of intensity on speech recognition in high- and low-frequency bands. Ear Hear, 15, 454-460.
17. Green, R., Day, S. & Bamford, J. 1989. A comparative evaluation of four hearing aid selection proceduRes I-Speech discrimination measures of benefit. British Journal of Audiology, 23, 185-199.
18. Gustafsson, H.Å. & Arlinger, S. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(1), 518-529.
19. Hagerman, B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79-87.
20. Hagerman, B. 1984. Some Aspects of Methodology in Speech Audiometry, (Dissertation). Karolinska Institute Stockholm, Sweden.
21. Hagerman, B. 1997. Attempts to Develop an Efficient Speech Test in Fully Modulated Noise. Scand Audiol, 26, 93-98.
22. Hagerman, B. 2002. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 41, 321-329.
23. Hagerman, B. & Kinnefors, C. 1995. Efficient Adaptive Methods for Measuring Speech Reception Threshold in Quiet and in Noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
24. Hawkins, I.E. Jr. & Stevens, S.S. 1950. The Masking of Pure-tones and of Speech by White Noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 22(1), 6-13.
25. Hayter, A.J. 1986. The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher's least significant difference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 1001-1004.
26. Hirsh, I.J. & Bowman, W.D. 1953. Masking of speech by bands of noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 1175-1180.
27. Hirsh, I.J., Reynolds, E.G. & Joseph, M. 1954. The intelligibility of different speech materials. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 530-538.
28. Humes, L.E. 1999. Dimensions of Hearing Aid Outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 26-39.
29. Hygge, S., Ronnberg, J., Larsby, B. & Arlinger, S. 1992. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 35(1), 208-215.
30. International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1997. ICRA, noise signals, Ver. 0.3.
31. International Standards Organization/Draft International Standard 389-8. 2001. Acoustics-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure-tones and circumaural earphones. Annex C. ISO/DIS 389-8. Geneva, ISO.
32. Kollmeier, B., Müller, C., Wesselkamp, M. & Kliem, K. 1992. Weiterentwicklung des Reimtests nach Sotscheck. (Further development of the rhyme test by Sotscheck). In B. Kollmeier (ed.), Moderne Verfahren der Sprachaudiometrie. Heidelberg: Median Verlag, pp. 216-237.
33. Kollmeier, B. & Wesselkamp, M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102(4), 2412-2421.
34. Nilsson, M., Soli, S.D. & Sullivan, J.A. 1994. Development of hearing in noise test for measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085-1099.
35. Peters, R.P., Moore, B.C.J. & Baer, T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103(1), 577-587.
36. Pickett, J.M. & Pollack, I. 1958. Prediction of speech intelligibility at high noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 955-963.
37. Plomp, R. 1978. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63(2), 533-549.
38. Plomp, R. & Mimpen, A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
39. Pollack, I. & Pickett, J.M. 1958. Masking of Speech by Noise at High Sound Levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 127-130.
40. Schroeder, M.R. 1968. Reference Signal for Signal Quality Studies. J Acoust Soc Am, 44, 1735-1736.
41. Smoorenburg, G.F. 1992. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421-437.
42. Speaks, C., Karmen, J.L. & Benitez, L. 1967. Effect of a competing message on synthetic sentence identification. J Speech Hear Res, 10, 390-396.
43. Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455-462.
44. Studebaker, G.A., Shernecoe, R.L., McDaniel, D.M. & Gwaltney, C.A. 1999. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 105(4), 2431-2443.
45. van Toor, T. & Verschuure, H. 2002. Effects of high-frequency emphasis and compression time constants on speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 41, 379-394.
46. Versfeld, N.J. & Dreschler, W.A. 2002. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 401-408.
47. Wagener, K. 2004. Factors Influencing Sentence Intelligibility in Noise, (Dissertation). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag, http://docserver. bis.uni-oldenburg.de/ publikationen/dissertation/2003/wagfac03/pdf/ wagfac03.pdf
48. Wagener, K., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test). Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38(2), 44-56.
49. Wagener, K., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test). Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38(3), 86-95.
50. Wagener, K., Josvassen, J.L. & Ardenkjær, R. 2003. Design, Optimization, and Evaluation of a Danish Sentence Test in Noise. Int J Audiol, 42(1), 10-17.
51. Wagener, K., Kühnel, V. & Kollmeier, B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test). Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38(1), 4-15.