Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 444-454

  Ozimek, Edward ^a   Warzybok, Anna ^a   Kutzner, Dariusz ^a  

^a ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

Author keywords

Psychometric function; Sentence matrix test; Speech intelligibility; Speech reception threshold; Speech in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHONETICS; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; REFERENCE VALUE; SEMANTICS; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHONETICS; REFERENCE VALUES; SEMANTICS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 77952709991     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992021003681030     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brachmań ski S. & Staroniewicz P. 1999. Fonetyczna struktura materia u testowego stosowanego w subiektywnych pomiarach jako ś ci mowy (in Polish) (Phonetic structure of test material for subjective assessments of speech quality). Speech and Language Technology , Pozna ń , 3, 71-80.
2. Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am , 111, 2801-2810.
3. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol , 11, 79-87.
4. H ä llgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Acoust , 45, 227-237.
5. Klein S.A. 2001. Measuring, estimating, and understanding of psychometric function: A commentary. Percept Psychophys , 63, 1421-1455.
6. Kollmeier B. & Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am , 102, 1085-1099.
7. Kollmeier B. 1990. Messmetodik, Modellierung, und Verbeserung der Verstandlichkeir von Sprache. (in German) (Methodology, modeling, and improvement of speech intelligibility measurements ). Habilitation thesis, G ö ttingen, University of G ö ttingen.
8. Kurcz I., Lewicki A., Sambor J., Szafran K. & Woronczak J. 1990. Sł ownik frekwencyjny polszczyzny wsp ó łczesnej. Kraków, Instytut j ȩ zyka polskiego PAN.
9. Levitt H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am , 49, 467-477.
10. Luts H., Boon E., Wable J. & Wouters J. 2008. FIST: A French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol , 47, 373-374.
11. Nilsson M., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am , 95, 1085-1099.
12. O'Regan J.K. & Humbert R. 1989. Estimating psychometric functions in forced-choice situations: Significant biases found in threshold and slope estimations when small samples are used. Percept Psychophys , 46, 434-442.
13. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sék A. & Wicher A. 2009a. Development and evaluation of Polish digit triplet test for auditory screening. Speech Commun , 31, 307-316.
14. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sek A. & Wicher A. 2009b. Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise. Int J Audiol , 48, 433-443.
15. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979a. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol , 18, 43-53.
16. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979b. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am , 66, 1333-1342.
17. Pruszewicz A., Demenko G., Richter L. & Wika T. 1994a. New articulation lists for speech audiometry. Part I. Otolaryngol Pol , 48, 50-55.
18. Pruszewicz A., Demenko G., Richter L. & Wika T. 1994b. New articulation lists for speech audiometry. Part II. Otolaryngol Pol , 48, 56-62.
19. Smits C. & Houtgast T. 2006. Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. J Acoust Soc Am , 120, 1608-1621.
20. Smits C., Kapteyn T. & Houtgast T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol , 43, 15-28.
21. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence material for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am , 107, 1671-1684.
22. Wagener K. 2003. Factors infl uencing sentence intelligibility in noise. PhD Dissertation, University of Oldenburg.
23. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test (in German). Z Audiol , 38, 4-15.
24. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence tests (in German). Z Audiol , 38, 44-56.
25. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test (in German). Z Audiol , 38, 86-95.
26. Wagener K., Eeenboom F., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2005. Ziffer-Tripel-Test: Spracherverstandlichkeitstest uber das Telefon. Tagungs-CD der DGA Jahrestagung.
27. Wagener K., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol , 42, 10-17.
28. Wetherhill G.B. 1963. Sequential estimation of quantal response curves. J R Stat SocSer B Methodol , 25, 1-48.