Development and validation of the azbio sentence lists

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 112-117

  Spahr, Anthony J ^a   Dorman, Michael F ^a   Litvak, Leonid M ^b   Van Wie, Susan ^a   Gifford, Rene H ^c   Loizou, Philipos C ^d   Loiselle, Louise M ^a   Oakes, Tyler ^a   Cook, Sarah ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; RECORDING; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STANDARD; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TAPE RECORDING;

EID: 84855208431     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31822c2549     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Boothroyd, A., Hnath-Chisolm, T., Hanin, L., et al. (1988). Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear Hear, 9, 306-312. (Pubitemid 19017927)
2. Dorman, M., Loizou, P., Fitzke, J., et al. (1998). The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 3583-3585. (Pubitemid 29006020)
3. Fabry, D., Firszt, J. B., Gifford, R. H., et al. (2009). Evaluating speech perception benefit in adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Today, 21, 36-43.
4. Gifford, R. H., Shallop, J. K., Peterson, A. M. (2008). Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: Considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol, 13, 193-205. (Pubitemid 351520944)
5. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6. Killion, M., Niquette, P., Revit, L., et al. (2001). Quick SIN and BKB-SIN, two new speech-in-noise tests permitting SNR-50 estimates in 1 to 2 min (A). J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 2502-2502.
7. 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. (Pubitemid 24056373)
8. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord, 62, 62-70.
9. Seneff, S., & Zue, V. (1988). Transcription and Alignment of the TIMIT Database. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Advanced Man- Machine Interface Through Spoken Language, Oahu, HI, November 20-22, 1988.
10. Spahr, A. J., & Dorman, M. F. (2004). Performance of subjects fit with the advanced bionics CII and nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 130, 624-628. (Pubitemid 38609675)
11. Spahr, A. J., & Dorman, M. F. (2005). Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med EL Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear Hear, 26(4 Suppl), 2S-6S. (Pubitemid 41117455)
12. Spahr, A. J., Dorman, M. F., Loiselle, L. H. (2007). Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear, 28, 260-275. (Pubitemid 46673501)
13. Thornton, A. R., & Raffin, M. J. (1978). Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 21, 507-518. (Pubitemid 9028176)