The viability of speech-in-noise audiometric screening using domestic audio equipment

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 44, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 691-700

  Culling, John F ^a   Zhao, Fei ^a,b   Stephens, Dafydd ^c  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENT; EQUIPMENT; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SCREENING; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH IN NOISE AUDIOMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION; PILOT PROJECTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 28844480137     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500267017     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Culling, J.F. & Colburn, H.S. 2000. Binaural sluggishness in the perception of tone sequences and speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 517-527.
2. Culling, J.F., Hodder, K.I. & Toll, C.Y. 2003. Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2871-2876.
3. Culling, J.F., Hawley, M.L. & Litovsky, R.Y. 2004. The role of head-induced interaural time and level differences in the speech reception threshold for multiple interfering sound sources. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 1057-1065.
4. Culling, J.F., Summerfield, Q. & Marshall, D.H. 1994. Effects of simulated reverberation on binaural cues and fundamental frequency differences for separating concurrent vowels. Speech Communication, 14, 71-96.
5. 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.
6. Fletcher, H. & Galt, R.H. 1950. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 89-151.
7. Kucera, H. & Francis, W.N. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.
8. Levitt, H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467-477.
9. Plomp, R. 1976. Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility of connected discourse in reverberation as a function of azimuth of a single competing sound source (speech or noise). Acustica, 34, 200-211.
10. Plomp, R. 1994. Noise, amplification and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear, 15, 2-12.
11. Plomp, R. & Mimpen, A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
12. Smits, C., Kapteyn, T.S. & Houtgast, T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol, 43, 15-28.
13. Smoorenburg, G. 1992. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiograms. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421-437.
14. Steeneken, H.J.M. & Houtgast, T. 1985. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1069-1077.
15. Wagener, K., Josvassen, J.L. & Ardenkjær, R. 2003. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiology, 42, 10-17.