The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 26-33

  Wagener, Kirsten Carola ^a,b   Brand, Thomas ^a   Kollmeier, Birger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b Hörzentrum Oldenburg ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Fluctuating noises; Icra noises; Interfering noise; Sentence test in noise; Silent interval durations; Speech reception threshold (SRT)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SIMULATION; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 28844477454     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500243851     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Brand, T. & Hohmann, V. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1597-1604.
2. 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, 2801-2810.
3. Bronkhorst, A.W. 2000. The Cocktail Party Phenomenon: A Review of Research on Speech Intelligibility in Multiple-Talker Conditions. Acta Acoustica, 86, 117-128.
4. Carhart, R., Tillman, T.W. & Greetis, E.S. 1969. Perceptual Masking in Multiple Sound Backgrounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 45, 694-703.
5. 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, 148-157.
6. 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, 87-96.
7. Dubno, J.R., Horwitz, A.R. & Ahlstrom, J.B. 2002. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2897-2907.
8. Dubno, J.R., Horwitz, A.R. & Ahlstrom, J.B. 2003. Recovery from prior stimulation: Masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084-2094.
9. Duquesnoy, A.J. 1983. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 739-743.
10. 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.
11. Gustafsson, H.Å. & Arlinger, S.D. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518-529.
12. Hagerman, B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scan Audiol, 11, 79-87.
13. International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology. 1997. ICRA, noise signals. Ver. 0.3.
14. ISO/DIS 389-8. 2001. Draft international standard. Acousties-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones. Annex C.
15. 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.
16. Nelson, P.B., Jin, S.-H., Carney, A.E. & Nelson, D.A. 2003. Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 961-968.
17. 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, 577-587.
18. Plomp, R. & Mimpen, A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Wagener, K. 2003. Factors Influencing Sentence Intelligibility in Noise, (Dissertation). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag, http://docserver.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/ publikationen/dissertation/2003/wagfac03/pdf/wagfac03.pdf.
22. 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, 44-56.
23. 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, 86-95.
24. Wagener, K., Josvassen, J.L. & Ardenkjær, R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17.
25. 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, 4-15.
26. Wagener, K.C. & Brand, T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144-156.