Effects of coarticulation, prosody, and noise freshness on the intelligibility of digit triplets in noise

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 215-221

  Lyzenga, Johannes ^a   Smits, Cas ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Coarticulation; Noise freshness; Prosody; Speech reception in noise; Triple digit test

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HEARING;

ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; REFERENCE VALUES; SPEECH; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 79956273367     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.4.4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bernstein JG, Oxenham AJ. (2006) The relationship between frequency selectivity and pitch discrimination: sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 120:3929-3945. (Pubitemid 44888089)
2. Bronkhorst AW, Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF. (1993) A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 93:499-509. (Pubitemid 23117064)
3. Bronkhorst AW, Brand T, Wagener K. (2002) Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 111:2874-2886. (Pubitemid 34760273)
4. Coble SF, Robinson DE. (1992) Discriminability of bursts of reproducible noise. J Acoust Soc Am 92:2630-2635.
5. Felty RA, Buchwald A, Pisoni DB. (2009) Adaptation to frozen babble in spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 125:EL93-EL97.
6. Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. (2005) Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1111-1121. (Pubitemid 41129243)
7. International Organization for Standardization. (2000) Acoustics - statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age. ISO 7029. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
8. International Telecommunications Union. (1996) Subjective performance assessment of telephone-band and wideband digital codecs. ITU-T Recommendation P.830. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.830-199602-I/en.
9. Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC, Frachet B, Wouters J. (2010) The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol 49:378-387.
10. Kruskal JB. (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115-129.
11. Leek MR, Dorman MF, Summerfield Q. (1987) Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 81:148-154. (Pubitemid 17225806)
12. Lyzenga J, Wagener K. (2005) Report on the proposed set of communication performance tests. HearCom Deliverable 1-2 http://hearcom.eu/about/ DisseminationandExploitation/deliverables/HearCom-D1-2-V2-0.pdf.
13. Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. (1951) The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol 41:329-335.
14. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Hopkins K. (2006) Frequency discrimination of complex tones by hearing-impaired subjects: evidence for loss of ability to use temporal fine structure. Hear Res 222:16-27. (Pubitemid 44708549)
15. Moore BCJ, Moore GA. (2003) Discrimination of the fundamental frequency of complex tones with fixed and shifting spectral envelopes by normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Hear Res 182:153-163. (Pubitemid 37013292)
16. Nelson PB, Nittrouer S, Norton SJ. (1995) "Say-stay" identification and psychoacoustic performance of hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1830-1838.
17. Noordhoek IM, Houtgast T, Festen JM. (2001) Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am 109:1197-1212. (Pubitemid 32215925)
18. Peterson GE, Barney HL. (1952) Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 24:175-184.
19. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. (1979) Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18:43-52. (Pubitemid 9111887)
20. Smits C, Houtgast T. (2005) Results from the Dutch speech-innoise screening test by telephone. Ear Hear 26:89-95. (Pubitemid 40204826)
21. 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. (Pubitemid 44370681)
22. Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. (2004) Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 43:15-28. (Pubitemid 38160245)
23. Wagener KC, Eeenboom F, Brand T, Kollmeier B. (2005) Ziffern-Tripel-Test: Sprachverständlichkeitstest über das Telefon. Tagungs-CD der DGA Jahrestagung 2005. http://www.uzh.ch/orl/dga-ev/publikationen/tagungsbaende/ tagungsbaende.html.
24. Wagener K, Kollmeier B, Vliegen J, Lutman M, Lyzenga J. (2006) Protocol for implementation of communication tests in different languages. HearCom Deliverable 1-3. http://hearcom.eu/about/DisseminationandExploitation/ deliverables/HearCom-D1-3-V2-0.pdf.
25. Watson CS, Kidd GR, Smits C, Humes LE. (2010) Development of an American English version of the three-digit telephone screening test for hearing impairment. Paper presented at the Adult Hearing Screening Conference, Cernobbio, Italy.
26. Wilson RH, Weakley DG. (2004) The use of digit triplets to evaluate word-recognition abilities in multitalker babble. Semin Hear 25:93-111.