Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 169-175

  Rhebergen, Koenraad S ^a   Versfeld, Niek J ^a   Dreschler, Wouter A ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY MASKING; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NOISE; NOISE MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TEMPORAL CORTEX;

ADULT; HEARING; HUMANS; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 43149097600     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816476d4     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American National Standards Institute (1969). American national standard methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index (ANSI S3.5-1969). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
2. American National Standards Institute (1996). American national standard methods for specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
3. American National Standards Institute (1997). American national standard methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index (ANSI S3.5-1997). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
4. Bacon, S. P., Opie, J. M., & Montoya, D. Y. (1998). The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 549-563.
5. Bronkhorst, A. W. (2000). The Cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica, 86, 117-128.
6. Brungart, D. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101-1109.
7. de Laat, J. A. P. M., & Plomp, R. (1983). The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. In R. Klinke, & R. Hartman (Eds.), Hearing - physiological bases and psychophysics (pp. 359-363). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
8. 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.
9. Dubno, J. R., Horwitz, A. R., & Ahlstrom, J. B. (2003). Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084-2094.
10. Festen, J. M. (1987). Speech-perception threshold in a fluctuating background sound and its possible relation to temporal resolution. In M. E. H. Schouten (Ed.), The psychophysics of speech perception (pp. 461-466). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
11. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
12. Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (2002). Application of the speech transmission index to the hearing impaired. In S. J. van Wijngaarden (Ed.), Past, present and future of the speech transmission index (pp. 69-78). Soesterberg: TNO Human Factors.
13. Fletcher, H., & Galt, R. H. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 89-151.
14. French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90-919.
15. George, E. L. W., Festen, J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2006). Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295-2311.
16. Hornsby, B. W. Y., & Ricketts, T. A. (2007). Directional benefit in the presence of speech and speech like maskers. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 5-16.
17. Humes, L. E. (1986). Application of the Articulation Index and the Speech Transmission Index to recognition of speech by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 29, 447-462.
18. Koopman, J., Franck, B. A., & Dreschler, W. A. (2001). Toward a representative set of "real life" noises. Audiology, 40, 78-91.
19. Lee, L. W., & Humes, L. E. (1993). Evaluating a speech-reception threshold model for hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 2873-2885.
20. Middelweerd, M. J., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal puretone audiogram. Audiology, 29, 1-7.
21. Miller, G. A., & Licklider, J. C. R. (1950). The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167-173.
22. Nelson, P. B., Jin, S. H., Carney, A. E., et al. (2003). Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 961-968.
23. Noordhoek, I. M., Houtgast, T., & Festen, J. M. (1999). Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. I. Normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2895-2902.
24. Pavlovic, C. V. (1987). Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 413-422.
25. Pavlovic, C. V. (1994). Band importance function for audiological applications. Ear Hear, 15, 100-104.
26. Peters, R. W., Moore, B. C., & Baer, T. (1998). Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577-587.
27. Plomp, R. (1986). A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception-threshold of the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146-154.
28. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
29. Rhebergen, K. S. (2006). Modeling the speech intelligibility in fluctuating noise. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam; ISBN 90-8559-202-X.
30. Rhebergen, K. S., & Versfeld, N. J. (2005). A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2181-2192.
31. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2005). Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 1274-1277.
32. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2006). Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3988-3997.
33. Smoorenburg, G. F. (1990). On the limited transfer of information with noise-induced heating loss. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh), 469, 38-46.
34. 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. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421-437.
35. Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., & Gilmore, C. (1993). Frequency importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 799-807.
36. Summers, V., & Molis, M. R. (2004). Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47, 245-256.
37. Trine, T. D. (1995). Speech recognition in modulated noise and temporal resolution: effects of listening bandwidth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
38. van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2007). Sentences recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 519-526.
39. Versfeld, N. J., Daalder, L., Festen, J. M., et al. (2000). Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671-1684.
40. Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2002). The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 401-408.