Consistency of sentence intelligibility across difficult listening situations

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 823-834

  Healy, Eric W ^a   Montgomery, Allen A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

CID sentences; Generalizability analysis; Sentence intelligibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; READING; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; LIP READING; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIPREADING; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 34248709645     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/058)     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Adams, C. F. (2002). Blame the message, not the messenger: Probing the difficulty of speechreading sentences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63-07A, 2414.
2. Alpiner, J. G., & McCarthy, P. A. (Eds.). (2000). Rehabilitative audiology: Children and adults. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
3. Bell, T. S., & Wilson, R. H. (2001). Sentence recognition materials based on frequency of word use and lexical confusability. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 514-522.
4. Bilger, R. C., Neutzel, J., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech in noise. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 32-48.
5. Cheung, H., & Kemper, S. (1992). Competing complexity metrics and adults' production of complex sentences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 53-76.
6. Clauser, R. A. (1976). The effect of vowel consonant ratio and sentence length on lipreading ability. American Annals of the Deaf, 121, 513-518.
7. Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956). Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 907-949.
8. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
9. Davis, H., & Silverman, S. R. (Eds.). (1978). Hearing and deafness (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
10. Demorest, M. E., & Bernstein, L. E. (1992). Sources of variability of speechreading sentences:Ageneralizability analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 876-891.
11. Demorest, M. E., & Bernstein, L. E. (1993). Applications of generalizability theory to measurement of individual differences in speech perception. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 26, 39-50.
12. Di Nocera, F., Ferlazzo, F., & Borghi, V. (2001). G theory and the reliability of psychophysical measures: A tutorial. Psychophysiology, 38, 796-806.
13. Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). BMDP statistical software manual. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14. Giolas, T. G., Cooker, H. S., & Duffy, J. R. (1970). The predictability of words in sentences. Journal of Auditory Research, 10, 328-334.
15. Giolas, T. G., & Duffy, J. R. (1973). Equivalency of CID and revised CID sentence lists. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 16, 549-555.
16. Grant, K. W., & Walden, B. E. (1996). Spectral distribution of prosodic information. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 228-238.
17. Harris, J. D., Haines, H. L., Kelsey, A. P., & Clack, T. D. (1961). The relation between speech intelligibility and electroacoustic characteristics of low fidelity circuitry. Journal of Auditory Research, 1, 357-381.
18. Healy, E. W. (1999). A minimum spectral contrast rule for speech recognition: Intelligibility based upon contrasting pairs of narrow-band amplitude patterns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(9-B), 5123.
19. Healy, E. W., & Warren, R. M. (2003). The role of contrasting temporal amplitude patterns in the perception of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1676-1688.
20. Hinkle, R. R. (1978). An investigation of list equivalency for auditory, visual, and auditory-visual performance using revised CID sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
21. Hood, R. B.,& Dixon, R. F. (1969). Physical characteristics of speech rhythm of deaf and normal hearing speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 2, 20-28.
22. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
23. Laures, J. S., & Weismer, G. (1999). The effects of a flattened fundamental frequency contour on intelligibility at the sentence level. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1148-1156.
24. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
26. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352.
27. O'Brian, N., O'Brian, S., Packman, A., & Onslow, M. (2003). Generalizability theory I: Assessing reliability of observational data in the communication sciences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 711-717.
28. O'Brian, S., Packman, A., Onslow, M., & O'Brian, N. (2003). Generalizability theory II: Application to perceptual scaling of speech naturalness in adults who stutter. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 718-723.
29. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
30. Rippy, J. V., Dancer, J., & Pittenger, J. B. (1983). List equivalency of the CID everyday sentences (Harris revision) under three signal-to-noise ratios. Ear and Hearing, 4, 251-254.
31. Scarsellone, J. M. (1998). Analysis of observational data in speech and language research using generalizability theory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1341-1347.
32. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. VanLeeuwen, D. M., Barnes, M. D., & Pase, M. (1998). Generalizibility theory: A unified approach to assessing the dependability (reliability) of measurements in the health sciences. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 302-325.
34. Webster, J. C. (1984). Interlist equivalencies for a numeral and a vowel/consonant multiple-choice monosyllabic test for severely/profoundly deaf young adults. Journal of Auditory Research, 24, 17-33.
35. Wilson, S., Dancer, J., & Stamper, J. (1984). Visual equivalency of Harris' revised CID everyday sentence lists. Volta Review, 86, 267-273.
36. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.