The consistency of sentence intelligibility across three types of signal distortion

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 270-282

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

CID sentences; Speech in noise; Speech perception; Speechreading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LIP READING; NOISE; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIPREADING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 34250830979     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/020)     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Adams, C. F. (2002). Blame the message, not the messenger: Probing the difficulty of speechreading sentences. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(07), 2414A.
2. American National Standards Institute. (1996). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI-S3.6, 1996). New York: Author.
3. Bochner, J. H., Garrison, W. M., Sussman, J. E., & Burkard, R. F. (2003). Development of materials for the clinical assessment of speech recognition: The speech sound pattern discrimination test. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 889-900.
4. Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956). Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 907-949.
5. Davis, H., & Silverman, S. R. (Eds.). (1978). Hearing and deafness (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
6. Demorest, M. E., & Bernstein, L. E. (1992). Sources of variability in speechreading sentences: A generalizability analysis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 876-891.
7. Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). (1992). BMDP statistical software manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8. Healy, E. W., & Montgomery, A. A. (2006). Consistency of sentence intelligibility across difficult listening situations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 823-834.
9. Hinkle, R. R. (1978). An investigation of list equivalency for auditory, visual, and auditory-visual performance using revised CID sentences. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
10. 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.
11. Kopra, L. K., Kopra, M. A., & Abrahamson, J. E. (1986). Development of sentences graded in difficulty for lipreading practice. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 19, 71-86.
12. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. 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.
14. Rosen, S. (1992). Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory, and linguistic aspects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 336, 367-373.
15. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Wang, M. D. (1970). The role of syntactic complexity as a determiner of comprehensibility. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 398-404.
17. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.