Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 42, Issue 4 SUPPL. 2, 2005, Pages 79-93

  Wilson, Richard H ^a,b,c   McArdle, Rachel ^c,d  

^a DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^b EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Audibility; Distortion; Hearing aid; Hearing loss; Multitalker babble; Signal to noise ratio; Speech in noise; Speech perception; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; HEARING AIDS; SIGNAL INTERFERENCE; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

AUDIBILITY; DISTORTION; HEARING LOSS; MULTITAKER BABBLE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

AGING; AUDIOLOGY; AUDITORY SYSTEM EXAMINATION; AUDITORY SYSTEM FUNCTION; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HEARING; HEARING ACUITY; HEARING LOSS; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

AGING; AUDIOMETRY; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; NOISE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 33244477151     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.06.0096     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. Gruber J. A text-book of the diseases of the ear. Translated by E. Law and C. Jewell from the second German edition. New York: D. Appleton and Company; 1891. p. 131-32.
2. Lichtwitz L. Über die anwendung des neuen Eidson's chen phonographen als allgemeinen Hormesser. Prager med. Wochenschr. 1889;14:547-49.
3. Hawley ME. On the application of the new Edison phonograph to general hearing measurement. In: Hawley ME, editor. Speech intelligibility and speaker recognition. Stroudsburg (PA): Dowden Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.; 1977.
4. Bryant WS. A phonographic acoumeter. Arch Otolaryngol. 1904;33:438-43.
5. Campbell GA. Telephonic intelligibility. Philos Mag. 1910;19:152-59.
6. Jones JH, Knudsen VO. Functional tests of hearing. Laryngoscope. 1924;39:1-16.
7. Fletcher H. Speech and hearing. New York: Van Nostrand Co; 1929.
8. Crandall IB. Composition of speech. Phys Rev. 1917;10:74.
9. Fletcher H, Steinberg JC. Articulation testing methods. Bell Sys Tech J. 1929;8:806-54.
10. Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE Jr, Karlin JE, Stevens SS. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope. 1947;57:57-89.
11. Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord. 1952;17:321-37.
12. Egan J. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope. 1948;58:955-91.
13. Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55 (Technical Report). Brooks Air Force Base (TX): USAF School of Aerospace Medicine; 1966.
14. Feldmann H. A history of audiology: A comprehensive report and bibliography from the earliest beginnings to the present. Transl Beltone Inst Hear Res. 1970;22:1-111.
15. Carhart R. Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol. 1951;40:62-71.
16. Stephens SDG. The input for a damaged cochlea: a brief review. Brit J Audiol. 1976;10:97-101.
17. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;63(2):533-49.
18. Killion MC. New thinking on hearing in noise: a generalized articulation index. Sem Hear. 2002;23:57-75.
19. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2395-2405.
20. Wilson RH. Development of a speech-in-multitalkerbabble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14(9):453-70.
21. Plomp R, Duquesnoy AJ. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid. Scand Audiol Suppl. 1982;15:95-111.
22. Carhart R, Tillman TW. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;91(3):273-79.
23. Groen JJ. Social hearing handicap: Its measurement by speech audiometry in noise. Int J Audiol. 1969;8:182-83.
24. Olsen WO, Carhart R. Development of test procedures for evaluation of binaural hearing aids. Bull Prosthet Res. 1967;10(7):22-49.
25. Strom KE. The HR 2003 dispenser survey. Hear Rev. 2003;10(6):22-38.
26. Fletcher H, Galt RH. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am. 1950;22:89-151.
27. Rankovic CM. An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(2):391-402.
28. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America; 1997.
29. McArdle RA, Wilson RH, Burks CA. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:726-39.
30. McArdle RA, Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, Wilson RH, Doyle PJ. The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults. Trends Amplif. 2005:9:127-43.
31. Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB in signal to babble. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40(4):321-28.
32. Beattie RC. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearingimpaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54(1):20-32.
33. Dirks DD, Morgan DE, Dubno JR. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Disord. 1982;47(2):114-23.
34. Egan JP. Articulation testing methods, II. OSRD report No. 3802. Cambridge (MA): Psychoacoustic laboratory, Harvard University; 1944.
35. Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol. 1951;41(5):329-35.
36. O'Neill JJ. Recognition of intelligibility test materials in context and isolation. J Speech Hear Disord. 1957;22(1):87-90.
37. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am. 1977;61:1337-51.
38. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear. 1987;8(5 Suppl):119S-25S.
39. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994(2);95:1085-99.
40. QuickSIN™ Speech-in-Noise Test [compact disk]. Elk Grove Village (IL): Etymotic Research, Inc.; 2001.
41. Bench J, Bamford J, editors. Speech-hearing tests and the spoken language of hearing-impaired children. London: Academic Press; 1979.
42. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust. 1969;17:227-46.
43. Rabinowitz WM, Eddington DK, Delhorne LA, Cuneo PA. Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992;92(4 Pt 1):1869-81.
44. Plomp R. The intelligent ear: on the nature of sound perception. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2002.
45. Hirsh IJ. The measurement of hearing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.
46. Giolas TG, Epstein A. Comparative intelligibility of word lists and continuous discourse. J Speech Hear Res. 1963;6:349-58.
47. Jerger J, Speaks C, Trammell J. A new approach to speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord. 1968;33(4):318-28.
48. Salthouse TA. Theory of cognitive aging. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): Elsevier Science and Technology Books; 1985. p. 1-456 (Advances in psychology, vol 28).
49. Craik F. Memory changes in normal aging. Am Psychol Soc. 1994;3:155-58.
50. Murdock BB Jr. The serial position effect in free recall. J Exp Psychol. 1962;64:482-88.
51. Wingfield A. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;7(3):175-82.
52. Craik F, Lockhart RS. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. J Verb Learn Verb Behav. 1972;11:671-84.
53. Rabbitt P. Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce IQ. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;476:167-76.
54. Olsen WO, Matkin ND. Speech audiometry in hearing assessment. In: Rintelman WF, editor. Hearing assessment. Baltimore (MD): University Park Press; 1979. p. 133-206.
55. Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Word recognition of digit triplets and monosyllabic words in multitalker babble by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. In press 2005.
56. Villchur E. The evaluation of amplitude-compression processing for hearing aids. In: Studebaker G, Bess F, editors. The Vanderbilt hearing aid report. Upper Darby (PA): Monographs in Contemporary Audiology; 1982. p. 141-43.
57. Jerger J, Jerger S. Diagnostic significance of PB word functions. Arch Otolaryngol. 1971;93(6):573-80.
58. Dirks DD, Kamm C, Bower D, Betsworth A. Use of performance-intensity functions for diagnosis. J Speech Hear Disord. 1977;42(3):408-15.
59. Bess FH, Josey AF, Humes LE. Performance intensity functions in cochlear and eighth nerve disorders. Am J Otol. 1979;1(1):27-31.
60. Hawkins JE, Stevens SS. The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1950;22(1):6-13.
61. Hirsh IJ, Bowman WD. Masking of speech by bands of noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1953;25:1175-80.
62. Duquesnoy AJ, Plomp R. The effect of a hearing aid on the speech-reception threshold of hearing-impaired listeners in quiet and noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1983;73(6):2166-73.
63. Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB, Horwitz AR. Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(1):538-46.
64. Kryter KD. Effects of ear protective devices on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1946;18(2):413-17.
65. Pollack I, Pickett JM. Masking of speech by noise at high sound levels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1958;30(2):127-30.
66. Chung DY, Mack B. The effect of masking by noise on word discrimination scores in listeners with normal hearing and with noise-induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol. 1979;8(3):139-43.
67. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gwaltney CA. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105(4):2431-44.
68. Shanks JE, Wilson RH, Larson V, Williams D. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing aids. Ear Hear. 2002;23(4):280-90.
69. French NR, Steinberg JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1947;19:90-119.
70. Braida LD. Articulation testing methods for evaluating speech reception by impaired listeners. ASHA Reports. 1984;14:26-30.
71. Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. Word recognition in noise at higher-than-normal levels: decreases in scores and increases in masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(2):914-22.
72. Willott JF. Anatomic and physiologic aging: A behavioral neuroscience perspective. J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;7(3):141-51.
73. van Rooij JC, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1991;476:177-81.
74. Wilson RH, Weakley DG. The 500 Hz masking-level difference and word recognition in multitalker babble for 40- to 89-year-old listeners with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16(6):367-82.
75. Humes LE. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;7(3):161-67.
76. Humes LE, Christopherson L. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(3):686-93.
77. Lee LW, Humes L. Factors for the speech recognition ability of the hearing-impaired elderly. ASHA. 1992;34:212.
78. Humes LE, Roberts L. Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33(4):726-35.
79. Helfer K. Aging and the binaural advantage in reverberation and noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;33(6):1349-1401.
80. Helfer KA, Wilber LA. Hearing loss, aging, and speech perception in reverberation and noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33(1):149-55.
81. Souza PE, Turner CW. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37(3):655-61.
82. van Rooij JC, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88(6):2611-24.
83. van Rooij JC, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III: additional data and final discussion. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992;91(2):1028-33.
84. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Profile of auditory temporal processing in older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42(2):300-311.
85. Schneider B. Psychoacoustics and aging: implication for everyday listening. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 1997;21:111-24.
86. Gengel RW. Temporal effects in frequency discrimination hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1973;54(1):11-15.
87. Gordon-Salant S. Hearing loss and aging: new research findings and clinical implications. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(4 Suppl):9-24.
88. Wingfield A, Poon LW, Lombardi L, Lowe D. Speed of processing in normal aging: effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. J Gerontol. 1985;40(5):579-85.
89. Salthouse TA. The nature of the influence of speed on adult age differences in cognition. Dev Psychol. 1994;30:240-59.
90. Obler L, Au R, Albert M. Language and aging. In: Huntley R, Helfer K, editors. Communication in later life. Boston (MA): Butterworth-Heinemann; 1995. p. 85-95.
91. Marsh GR, Thompson LW. Psychophysiology of aging. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW, editors. Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1977. p. 219-48.
92. Woodruff DS. Brain electrical activity and behavior relationships over the life span. In: Baltes PB, Brim OG, editors. Life-span development and behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1979. p. 112-181.
93. Cerella J. Information processing rates in the elderly. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(1):67-83.
94. Salthouse TA. Mediation of adult age differences in cognition by reductions in working memory and speed of processing. Psychol Sci. 1991;2:179-83.
95. Wingfield A, Stine EA, Lahar CJ, Aberdeen JS. Does the capacity of working memory change with age? Exp Aging Res. 1988;14(2-3):103-7.
96. Lindenberger U, Baltes PB. Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: a strong connection. Psychol Aging. 1994;9(3):339-55.
97. Baltes PB, Lindenberger U. Emergence of a powerful connection between sensory and cognitive functions across the adult life span: a new window to the study of cognitive aging? Psychol Aging. 1997;12(1):12-21.
98. Helfer K. Auditory perception by older adults. In: Huntley R, Helfer K, editors. Communication in later life. Boston (MA): Butterworth-Heinemann; 1995. p. 41-84.
99. Studebaker GA. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res. 1985:28(3):455-62.