Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 2-13

  Francart, Tom ^a   Van Wieringen, Astrid ^a   Wouters, Jan ^a  

^a KU LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Hearing aids; Noise; Psychoacoustics hearing science; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOPHYSICS; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; RECOGNITION; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CUES; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650300685     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2010.505582     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. ANSI-3.5 1997, 1997. ANSI S3.5, Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. Acoustical Society of America.
2. Bacon S., Opie J. & Montoya D. 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(3), 549-563.
3. Bernstein J. & Grant K. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fl uctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125(5), 3358-72.
4. Boersma P. & Weenink D. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341-345.
5. Bregman A. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis . Cambridge, Mass., USA, MIT Press.
6. Brungart D. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109(3), 1101-9.
7. Brungart D., Chang P. , Simpson B. & Wang D. 2009. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation Effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 125(6), 4006-22.
8. Brungart D., Simpson B., Ericson M. & Scott K. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am , 110(5 pt. 1), 2527-38.
9. Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(4), 2108-2120.
10. Cullington H. & Zeng F. 2008. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 123(1), 450-61.
11. Dreschler W. , Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. Icra noises Artifi cial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology, 40(3), 148-57.
12. Drullman R. & Bronkhorst A. 2004. Speech perception and talker segregation Effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(5), 3090-8.
13. Durlach N., Mason C. Jr., Arbogast T., Colburn H. & Shinn-Cunningham B. 2003. Note on informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 113(6), 2984-7.
14. Eisenberg L. & Dirks D. 1995. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res , 38(1), 222.
15. Festen J. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fl uctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88(4), 1725-36.
16. Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. APEX 3 A multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods, 172(2), 283-293.
17. Gustafsson H. & Arlinger S. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(1), 518-29.
18. Holube I. 2007. Short description of the international speech test signal (ists). Technical report, Hoertech.
19. Howard-Jones P. & Rosen S. 1993. Uncomodulated glimpsing in ' checkerboard' noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 93(5), 2915-22.
20. IPA, 1999, Handbook of the International Phonetic Association A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet.
21. Kwon B. & Turner C. 2001. Consonant identifi cation under maskers with sinusoidal modulation Masking release or modulation interference? J Acoust Soc Am, 110(2), 1130-40.
22. Peters R., Moore B. & 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(1), 577-87.
23. Plomp R. & Mimpen A. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18(1), 43-52.
24. Rhebergen K., Versfeld N. & Dreschler W. 2005. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am , 118(3 pt. 1), 1274-7.
25. Shinn-Cunningham B. 2008. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci, 12(5), 182-6.
26. Simpson S. & Cooke M. 2005. Consonant identifi cation in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(5), 2775-8.
27. Takahashi G. & Bacon S. 1992. Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res, 35(6), 1410-1421.
28. van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LINT Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and The Netherlands. Int J Audol, 47(6), 348-355.
29. Versfeld N., Daalder L., Festen J. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for effi cient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107(3), 1671-84.
30. Wagener K. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment Infl uence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44(3), 144-56.
31. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fl uctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol, 45(1), 26-33.