The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 576-584

  Zekveld, Adriana A ^a   George, Erwin L J ^a   Kramer, Sophia E ^a   Goverts, S Theo ^a   Houtgast, Tammo ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ability to read masked text; Modality aspecific cognitive functions; Speech perception in noise; SRT test; TRT test

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TEXT RECEPTION THRESHOLD; MIDDLE AGED; VISION;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 34547399059     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/040)     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Best, J. B. (1999). Cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
2. Duquesnoy, A. J. (1983). The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and noise in aged listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 1136-1144.
3. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1725-1736.
4. George, E. L. J., Festen, J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2006). Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 2295-2311.
5. Goldstein, E. B. (2002). Sensation and perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson.
6. Grant, K. W., Walden, B. E., & Seitz, P. F. (1998). Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: Consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 2677-2690.
7. Hagerman, B. (2002). Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. International Journal of Audiology, 41, 321-329.
8. Humes, L. E. (2005). Do "auditory processing" tests measure auditory processing in the elderly? Ear and Hearing, 26, 109-119.
9. International Organization for Standardization. (1991). Acoustics: Standard reference zero for the calibration of puretone air conduction audiometer (ISO 389). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
10. Ishihara, S. (1989). The series of plates designed as a test for colour deficiency. Tokyo: Kanehara.
11. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
12. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
13. McFarland, D. J., & Cacace, A. T. (1995). Modality specificity as a criterion for diagnosing central auditory processing disorders. American Journal of Audiology, 4, 36-48.
14. Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(2). Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://PAREonline.net /getvn.asp?v=8&n=2.
15. Pichora-Fuller, M. F., Schneider, B. A., & Daneman, M. (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 593-608.
16. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979a). Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1333-1342.
17. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979b). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
18. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life measurements: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193-205.
19. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
20. 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. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 421-437.
21. Tammemagi, M. C., Frank, J. W., Leblanc, M., Artsob, H., & Streiner, D. L. (1995). Methodological issues in assessing reproducibility: A comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat ELISA serologic tests for Lyme disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 1123-1132.
22. Van den Brink, W. P., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (1998). Testleer en testconstructie [Testing and test construction]. Amsterdam: Boom.
23. Van Rooij, J. C. G. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners: II. Multivariate analyses. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2611-2624.
24. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1671-1684.
25. Watson, C. S., Qui, W. W., Chamberlain, M. M., & Li, X. (1996). Auditory and visual speech perception: Confirmation of a modality independent source of individual differences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1153-1162.
26. Zekveld, A. A., Deijen, J.-B., Goverts, S. T., & Kramer, S. E. (2007). The relationship between nonverbal cognitive functions and hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 74-82.