On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 287-295

  Houtgast, Tammo ^a   Festen, Joost M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Auditory distortion; Auditory test battery; Cognitive tests; Correlation studies; Speech in noise test; SRT; Supra threshold deficits

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; HEARING; NOISE MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY;

AGE FACTORS; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; COGNITION DISORDERS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; NOISE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 47349122184     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020802127109     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: ANSI S3.5-1997.
2. Carhart R. 1951 Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol, 40, 62-71.
3. Divenyi P.L. & Haupt K.M. 1997. Audiological correlates of speech understanding defects in elderly listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. II. Correlation analysis. Ear Hear, 18, 100-13.
4. Dreschler W.A. & Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1261-70.
5. 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, 2084-94.
6. Duquesnoy A.J. 1983. The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 1136-44.
7. Festen J.M., Plomp R. 1983. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 652-62.
8. 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. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295-311.
9. George E.L.J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2007. Auditory and non-auditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362-75.
10. Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C.J. 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol, Suppl. 32, 1-25.
11. Humes L.E. 2002. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1112-32.
12. Noordhoek I.M., Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2001. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1197-212.
13. Pavlovic C.V., Studebaker G.A. & Sherbecoe R.L. 1986. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 50-7.
14. Peters R.W., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception threshold in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577-87.
15. Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Souza P.E. 2003. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 2:2, S11-6.
16. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52.
17. Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146-54.
18. 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, 2181-92.
19. 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, 421-37.
20. Stephens S.D.G. 1976. The input for a damaged cochlea: A brief review. Brit J Audiol, 10, 97-101.
21. ter Keurs M., Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1993. Limited resolution of spectral contrasts and hearing loss for speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 1307-14.
22. van Rooij J.C.G.M. & Plomp R. 1992. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 1028-33.
23. van Schijndel N.H., Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2001a. The effect of intensity perturbations on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 2202-10.
24. van Schijndel N.H., Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2001b. Effects of degradation of intensity, time, or frequency content on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 529-42.
25. Wilson R.H. & McArdle R. 2005. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev, 42(4 Suppl 2), 79-94.
26. Zekveld A.A., George E.L., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2007. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 576-84.