Psychometrically equivalent Mandarin bisyllabic speech discrimination materials spoken by male and female talkers

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 44, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 379-390

  Nissen, Shawn L ^a   Harris, Richard W ^a   Jennings, Lara Jill ^a   Eggett, Dennis L ^a   Buck, Holly ^a  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bisyllabic; Chinese; Digitally recorded; Equivalent; Homogeneity; Logistic regression; Mandarin; Psychometric function; Speech audiometry; Speech discrimination; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHINESE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MANDARIN; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TAPE RECORDER; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEX FACTORS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT; TAPE RECORDING;

EID: 23844455954     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500147615     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. American National Standards Institute 1999. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. ANSI S3.1-1999. New York: ANSI.
2. American National Standards Institute 2004. Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2004. New York: ANSI.
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1988. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. ASHA, 30, 85-89.
4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1990. Guidelines for screening for hearing impairments and middle-ear disorders. ASHA, 32, 17-24.
5. Beattie, R.C., Edgerton, B.J. & Svihovec, D.V. 1977. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord, 42, 60-64.
6. Beattie, R.C., Svihovec, D.V. & Edgerton, B.J. 1975. Relative intelligibility of the CID spondees as presented via monitored live voice. J Speech Hear Disord, 40, 84-91.
7. Brandy, W.T. 1966. Reliability of voice tests of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res, 9, 461-465.
8. Cambron, N.K., Wilson, R.H. & Shanks, J.E. 1991. Spondaic word detection and recognition functions for female and male speakers. Ear Hear, 12, 64-70.
9. Campbell, G.L. 1991. Compendium of the World's Languages. London & New York: Routledge.
10. Campbell, R.A. 1965. Discrimination test word difficulty. J Speech Hear Res, 8, 13-22.
11. China Daily. December 26, 2004. Greater numbers speak Mandarin. [Internet Newspaper] Retrieved February 17, 2005 from http:// www.chinadaily.com.cn/ english/doc/2004-12/26/content_403419.htm
12. Comstock, C.L. & Martin, F.N. 1984. A children's Spanish word discrimination test for non-Spanish-speaking clinicians. Ear Hear, 5, 166-170.
13. Creston, J.E., Gillespie, M. & Krohn, C. 1966. Speech audiometry: Taped vs live voice. Arch Otolaryngol, 83, 14-17.
14. Da, J. 2004. A corpus-based study of character and bigram frequencies in Chinese e-text and its implications for Chinese language instruction. In Z. Pu, T. Xie & J. Xu (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on New Technologies in Teaching and Learning Chinese. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, pp. 501-511.
15. Davis, L.A. & Davidson, S.A. 1996. Preference for and performance with damped and undamped hearing aids by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 483-493.
16. Eldert, E. & Davis, H. 1951. The articulation function of patients with conductive deafness. Laryngoscope, 41, 891-909.
17. Elpern, B.S. 1961. The relative stability of half-list and full-list discrimination tests. Laryngoscope, 71, 30-36.
18. Fu, Q.J., Zeng, F.G., Shannon, R.V. & Soli, S.D. 1998. Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 505-510.
19. Grubb, P. 1963a. A phonemic analysis of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res, 10, 271-275.
20. Grubb, P. 1963b. Some considerations in the use of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res, 10, 294-297.
21. Harris, R.W., Goffi, M.V.S., Pedalini, M.E.B., Gygi, M.A. & Merrill, A. 2001a. Psychometrically equivalent Brazilian Portuguêse trisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Pró-Fono, 13, 37-53.
22. Harris, R.W., Goffi, M.V.S., Pedalini, M.E.B., Merrill, A. & Gygi, M.A. 2001b. Psychometrically equivalent Brazilian Portuguêse bisyllabic word recognition materials spoken by male and female talkers. Pró-Fono, 13, 249-262.
23. Harris, R.W., Kim, E. & Eggett, D.L. 2003. Psychometrically equivalent Korean bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Korean J Commun Disord, 8, 217-243.
24. Harris, R.W., Nielson, W.S., McPherson, D.L., Skarzynski, H. & Eggett, D.L. 2004a. Psychometrically equivalent Polish bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Audiofonologia, 25, 1-15.
25. Harris, R.W., Nissen, S.L. & Jennings, L. 2004b. Brigham Young University Mandarin Speech Audiometry Materials (Disc 1.0). [Compact Disc]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
26. Hood, J.D. & Poole, J.P. 1980. Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. Audiology, 19, 434-455.
27. Huang, T.S., Wang, N.M. & Liu, S.Y. 1995. Tone perception of Mandarin-speaking postlingually deaf implantees using the Nucleus 22-Channel Cochlear Mini System. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 166, 294-298.
28. Institute of Language Teaching and Research 1986. A Frequency Dictionary of Modern Chinese. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.
29. Kamm, C.A., Carterette, E.C., Morgan, D.E. & Dirks, D.D. 1980. Use of digitized speech materials in audiological research. J Speech Hear Res, 23, 709-721.
30. Katzner, K. 1986. The Languages of the World. London & New York: Routledge.
31. Kreul, E.J., Bell, D.W. & Nixon, J.C. 1969. Factors affecting speech discrimination test difficulty. J Speech Hear Res, 12, 281-287.
32. Lehiste, I. & Peterson, G. 1959. Linguistic considerations and intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 31, 280-286.
33. Li, C.N. & Thompson, S.A. 1987. Chinese. In B. Comrie (ed.), The World's Major Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 811-833.
34. Liu, E.S. 1973. Frequency dictionary of Chinese words. The Hague: Mouton.
35. Luce, P.A. 1986. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept Psychophys, 39, 155-158.
36. Martin, F.N., Champlin, C.A. & Perez, D.D. 2000. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 489-493.
37. Pisoni, D.B. 1985. Speech perception: Some new directions in research and theory. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 381-388.
38. Resnick, D. 1962. Reliability of the twenty-five word phonetically balanced lists. J Aud Res, 2, 5-12.
39. Ridgway, J. 1986. Compact disks-A revolution in the making. Can Library J, 43, 23-29.
40. Roup, C.M., Wiley, T.L., Safady, S.H. & Stoppenbach, D.T. 1998. Tympanometric screening norms for adults. Am J Audiol, 7, 55-60.
41. Sony. Compact disc player operating instructions. 1991. Japan, Sony Corporation. Ref Type: Pamphlet
42. Stelmachowicz, P.G., Pittman, A.L., Hoover, B.M. & Lewis, D.E. 2002. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear, 23, 316-324.
43. Studio Audio & Video Ltd. 2004. SADiE disk editor software. [5.2.2]. [Computer Program]. Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK: Studio Audio & Video Ltd.
44. Wang, B.K. & Huang, T.S. 1988. Current clinical results of the cochlear implant program conducted on Mandarin-speaking patients. Am J Otol, 9, 44-51.
45. Wang, Q., Gu, R., Han, D. & Yang, W. 2003. Familial auditory neuropathy. Laryngoscope, 113, 1623-1629.
46. Weisleder, P. & Hodgson, W.R. 1989. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear Hear, 10, 387-392.
47. Wilson, R.H. & Carter, A.S. 2001. Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 7-14.
48. Wilson, R.H. & Oyler, A.L. 1997. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear, 18, 430-433.
49. Wilson, R.H. & Strouse, A. 1999. Psychometrically equivalent spondaic words spoken by a female speaker. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 1336-1346.
50. Wilson, W.J. & Moodley, S. 2000. Use of the CID W22 as a South African English speech discrimination test. S Afr J Commun Disord, 47, 57-62.
51. Zakrzewski, A., Jassem, W., Pruszewicz, A. & Obrebowski, A. 1976. Speech audiometry for children and subjective probability of Polish words. Audiology, 15, 228-231.
52. Zhou, X. & Marslen-Wilson, W. 1995. Morphological structure in the Chinese mental lexicon. Lang Cogn Processes, 10, 545-600.