The performance/intensity function: An underused resource

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 479-491

  Boothroyd, Arthur ^a,b,c,d  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PERFORMANCE VERSUS INTENSITY FUNCTION; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; WORD RECOGNITION; ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEARING; PERCEPTION; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; SOFTWARE; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 54049151613     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318174f067     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. ANSI. (1969). American national standard method for calculation of the articulation index (S3.5-1969). New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. ANSI. (2002). Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for classrooms (ANSI S12.6-2002). New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Boothroyd, A. (1968a). Developments in speech audiometry. Br J Audiol (Formerly Sound), 2, 3-10.
4. Boothroyd, A. (1968b). Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am, 43, 362-367.
5. Boothroyd, A. (2004). Room acoustics and speech perception. Semin Hear, 25, 155-166.
6. Boothroyd, A. (2006). CASPA 5.0. Software. San Diego: A Boothroyd.
7. Boothroyd, A. & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 101-114. (Pubitemid 18180603)
8. Bradley, J. S. (1986). Predictors of speech intelligibility in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 837-845.
9. Bradley, J. S., Sato, H., & Picard, M. (2003). On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 3233-3244. (Pubitemid 36676517)
10. Brandy, W. T. (2002). Speech audiometry. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology (5 ed., pp. 96-110). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
11. Carhart, R. (1965). Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol, 82, 253-260.
12. Cox, R. M. & Moore, J. R. (1988). Composite speech spectrum for hearing aid gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res, 31, 102-107.
13. Dillon, H. (2001). Compression systems in hearing aids. In Hearing aids (pp. 169). New York: Theime.
14. Fletcher, H. (1953). Speech and hearing in communication. New York: Van Nostrand [edited by Jont Allen and republished in 1995 by the Acoustical Society of America. Woodbury, NY].
15. French, N. R. & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90-119.
16. Gelfand, S. (1998). Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 1088-1102.
17. Guthrie, L. A. (2007). Optimizing presentation level for speech recognition testing. Unpublished AuD research thesis. San Diego: San Diego State University.
18. Haro, N. (2007). Development and evaluation of the Spanish computer-assisted speech perception assessment test (CASPA). Unpublished AuD research thesis. San Diego: San Diego State University.
19. Kamm, C. A., Morgan, D. E., & Dirks, D. D. (1983). Accuracy of adaptive procedure estimates of PB-Max level. J Speech Hear Disord, 48, 202-209.
20. Kryter, K. D. (1962a). Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34, 1689-1697.
21. Kryter, K. D. (1962b). Validation of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34, 1698-1702.
22. Mackersie, C. L., Boothroyd, A., & Minnear, D. (2001). Evaluation of the computer-assisted speech perception test (CASPA). J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 390-396. (Pubitemid 33040932)
23. Nabalek, A. K., Letowski, T. R., & Tucker, F. M. (1989). Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 1259-1265.
24. Olsen, W. O., Van Tasell, D. J., & Speaks, C. E. (1996). Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences. Ear Hear, 18, 175-188.
25. Oruganti, B. (2000). The effects of high-frequency emphasis and amplitude compression on the short-term intensity range of speech. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. New York: City University of New York.
26. Pegan, K. (2007). Interactive effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception. Unpublished AuD research thesis. San Diego: San Diego State University.
27. Peutz, V. (1997). Speech reception and information. In D. Davis & C. Davis (Eds.), Sound system engineering (2 ed., pp. 639-644). Boston: Focal Press.
28. Studebaker, G. A., Taylor, R., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1994). The effect of noise spectrum on speech recognition performance-intensity functions. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 439-448. (Pubitemid 24116506)
29. Thornton, A. R. & Raffin, M. J. M. (1978). Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 21, 507-518. (Pubitemid 9028176)
30. Walker, J. (1975). A comparative study of two test procedures in speech audiometry. Unpublished Masters Thesis, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.