Development and evaluation of a linguistically and audiologically controlled sentence intelligibility test

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Volumn 134, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 3039-3056

  Uslar, Verena N ^a,b   Carroll, Rebecca ^a,b   Hanke, Mirko ^a,b   Hamann, Cornelia ^a,b   Ruigendijk, Esther ^a,b   Brand, Thomas ^a,b   Kollmeier, Birger ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b Cluster of Excellence Hearing4all ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE PROCESSING; LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS; RESPONSE STRATEGIES; SENTENCE INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD; SPEECH UNDERSTANDING; SYSTEMATIC VARIATION;

AUDITION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

LINGUISTICS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; NOISE; PERCEPTION; REACTION TIME; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84885404034     PISSN: 00014966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1121/1.4818760     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). " Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults.," Int. J. Audiol. 47 (Suppl. 2), 53-71.
2. Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). " Ambiguity in sentence processing.," Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 146-152 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01153-X
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., and Gulikers, R. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, http://www.mpi.nl/world/celex (Last viewed 11/27/12).
4. Bader, M., and Meng, M. (1999). " Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison.," J. Psycholinguist. Res. 28 (1), 121-143. 10.1023/A:1023206208142
5. Benoît, C., Grice, M., and Hazan, V. (1996). " The SUS test: A method for the assessment of text-to-speech synthesis intelligibility using semantically unpredictable sentences.," Speech Commun. 18, 381-392. 10.1016/0167-6393(96)00026-X
6. Bernstein, J. G. W., and Grant, K. W. (2009). " Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 3358-3372. 10.1121/1.3110132
7. Biemann, C., Bordag, S., Heyer, G., Quasthoff, U., and Wolff, C. (2004). " Language-independent methods for compiling monolingual lexical data.," Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2945, 217-228. 10.1007/978-3-540-24630-5- 27
8. Bolia, R. S., Nelson, W. T., Ericson, M. A., and Simpson, B. D. (2000). " A speech corpus for multitalker communications research.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 1065-1066. 10.1121/1.428288
9. Boothroyd, A., and Nittrouer, S. (1988). " Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 101-114. 10.1121/1.396976
10. Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A. D., von Cramon, D. Y., and Schlesewsky, M. (2005). " Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension.," Neuroimage 26, 221-233. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.032
11. Brand, T., and 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. 10.1121/1.1479152
12. Bronkhorst, A. W. (2000). " The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions.," Acta Acoust. 86, 117-128.
13. Bronkhorst, A. W., Brand, T., and Wagener, K. (2002). " Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 2874-2886. 10.1121/1.1458025
14. Caplan, D., and Waters, G. " Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension.," Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 77-94 (1999).
15. Carroll, R. (2013). Effects of Syntactic Complexity and Prosody on Sentence Processing in Noise (Shaker, Aachen).
16. Carroll, R., and Ruigendijk, E. (2013). " The effect of syntactic complexity on sentence processing in noise.," J. Psycholinguist. Res. 42 (2), 139-159. 10.1007/s10936-012-9213-7
17. Cheung, H., and Kemper, S. (1992). " Competing complexity metrics and adults production of complex sentences.," Appl. Psycholinguist. 13, 53-76. 10.1017/S0142716400005427
18. DIN EN 389-8 (2004). Akustik-Standard-Bezugspegel für die Kalibrierung audiometrischer Geräte-Teil 8: Äquivalente Bezugs-Schwellenschalldruckpegel für reine Töne und circumaurale Kopfhörer (ISO 389-8:2004) [Acoustics-Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment-Part 8: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Circumaural Earphones (ISO 389-8:2004), German version]. European Committee for Standardization, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (Beuth, Berlin).
19. Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., and Westermann, S. (2001). " ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment.," Int. J. Audiol. 40, 148-157. 10.3109/00206090109073110
20. Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., and Schlesewsky, M. (1999). " Processing difficulty and principles of grammar.," in Constraints on Language: Aging, Grammar, and Memory, edited by, S. Kemper, and, R. Kliegl, (Kluwer, Dordrecht), pp. 171-201.
21. Fanselow, G., Lenertová, D., and Weskott, T. (2008). " Studies on the acceptability of object movement to spec, CP.," in The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, edited by, A. Steube, (De Gruyter, Berlin), pp. 413-438.
22. Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1982). " Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.," Cogn. Psychol. 14, 178-210. 10.1016/0010-0285(82) 90008-1
23. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M. (2001). " Memory interference during language processing.," J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27 (6), 1411-1423.
24. Gorrell, P. (2000). " The subject-before-object preference in German clauses.," in German Sentence Processing, edited by, B. Hemforth, and, L. Konieczny, (Kluwerp p, Dordrecht), pp. 25-63.
25. Hagerman, B. (1982). " Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise.," Scand. Audiol. 11, 79-87. 10.3109/01050398209076203
26. Hanke, M., Hamann, C., and Ruigendijk, E. (2013). " On the laws of attraction at cocktail parties: Babble noise influences the production of number agreement.," Lang. Cognit. Processes (in press).
27. Hofmann, M. J., Stenneken, P., Conrad, M., and Jacobs, A. M. (2007). " Sublexical frequency measures for orthographic and phonological units in German.," Behav. Res. Methods 39 (3), 620-629. 10.3758/BF03193034
28. Just, M. A., and Carpenter P. A. (1992). " A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.," Psychol. Rev. 99, 122-149. 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122
29. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., and Elliott, L. L. (1977). " Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61, 1337-1351. 10.1121/1.381436
30. Kidd, G., Jr., Mason, C. R., Richards, V. M., Gallun, F. J., and Durlach N. I. (2007). " Informational masking.," in Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 29:Auditory Perception of Sound Sources, edited by, W. Yost, (Springer, New York), pp. 143-190.
31. Kim, S., Kim, M., and Chun, M. M. (2005). " Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction.," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16524-16529. 10.1073/pnas.0505454102
32. Kollmeier, B. (1990). " Meßmethodik, Modellierung und Verbesserung der Verständlichkeit von Sprache" ["Measurement method, modelling, and improvment of intelligibility of speech"]., Habilitation treatise, University of Göttingen, Fachbereich Physik, Göttingen.
33. Kollmeier, B., and Wesselkamp, M. (1997). " Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2412-2421. 10.1121/1.419624
34. Lunner, T., Rudner, M., and Rönnberg, J. (2009). " Cognition and hearing aids.," Scand. J. Psychol. 50 (5), 395-403. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00742.x
35. MacPherson, A., and Akeroyd, M. A. (2012). " The rate of intelligibility change with level for continuous speech.," The Listening Talker, Edinburgh, 2-3 May.
36. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. (2002). " The influence of animacy on relative clause processing.," J. Mem. Lang. 47, 50-68. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2837
37. Mattys, S. L., Brooks, J., and Cooke, M. (2009). " Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors.," Cogn. Psychol. 59, 203-243 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.04.001
38. May, C. P., Hasher, L., and Kane, M. J. (1999). " The role of interference in memory span.," Mem. Cogn. 27, 759-767 10.3758/BF03198529
39. Meier, H. (1967). Deutsche Sprachstatistik (German Language Statistics) (Georg Olms, Hildesheim).
40. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., and Lichten, W. (1951). " The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.," J. Exp. Psychol. 41, 329-335. 10.1037/h0062491
41. Ozimek, E., Kutzner, D., Sek, A., and Wicher, A. (2009). " Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise.," Int. J. Audiol. 48, 433-443. 10.1080/14992020902725521
42. Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2008). " Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing.," Int. J. Audiol. 47 (Suppl. 2), 144-154.
43. Pickett, J. M., and Pollack, I. (1963). " Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Effects of rate of utterance and duration of excerpt.," Lang. Speech 6 (3), 151-164.
44. Plomp, R. (2002). The Intelligent Ear: On the Nature of Sound Perception (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ).
45. Plomp, R., and Mimpen, A. M. (1979). " Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences.," Audiology 18, 43-52. 10.3109/00206097909072618
46. Reisberg, D. (2007). Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind (W. W. Norton, New York).
47. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., and Dreschler, W. A. (2006). " Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 3988-3997. 10.1121/1.2358008
48. Rodd, J. M., Davis, M. H., and Johnsrude, I. S. (2005). " The neural mechanisms of speech comprehension: fMRI studies of semantic ambiguity.," Cerebral Cortex 15 (8), 1261-1269.
49. Rönnberg, J., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., and Zekveld, A. A. (2010). " When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise.," Noise Health 12 (49), 263-269. 10.4103/1463-1741.70505
50. Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., and Lunner, T. (2011). " Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22, 156-167.
51. Schuchart, K. (2008). " Arbeitsgedächtnis und Lernstörungen: Differenzielle Analysen der Funktionstüchtigkeit des Arbeitsgedächtnisses bei Kindern mit Lernstörungen" ["Working memory and learning disabilities: Differential analyses of working memory functioning in children with learning disabilities"]., doctoral dissertation, University of Göttingen.
52. Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., and Grimshaw, J. (1987). " Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs.," Cognition 27 (3), 219-246. 10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80010-0
53. Stroop, J. R. (1935). " Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.," J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 643-662. 10.1037/h0054651
54. Tewes, U. (1991). Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene-Revision 1991 (HAWIE-R) (Huber, Bern).
55. Tun, P. A., Benichov, J., and Wingfield, A. (2010). " Response latencies in auditory sentence comprehension: Effects of linguistic versus perceptual challenge.," Psychol. Aging 25 (3), 730-735. 10.1037/a0019300
56. Uslar, V., Ruigendijk, E., Hamann, C., Brand, T., and Kollmeier, B. (2011). " Sentence complexity effects in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test: May we ignore psycholinguistics when testing speech in noise?," Int. J. Audiol. 50, 621-631. 10.3109/14992027.2011.582166
57. van Rooij, J. C., and Plomp, R. (1991). " The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners.," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 2985-2991. 10.1121/1.401772
58. Vlaming, M. S., Kollmeier, B., Dreschler, W. A., Martin, R., Wouters, J., Grover, B., Mohammadh, Y., and Houtgast, T. (2011). " HearCom: Hearing in the Communication Society.," Acta Acust. Acust. 97 (2), 175-192. 10.3813/AAA.918397
59. Wagener, K., Josvassen, J. L., and Ardenkjaer, R. (2003). " Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise.," Int. J. Audiol. 42, 10-17. 10.3109/14992020309056080
60. Wagener, K., Kühnel, V., and Kollmeier, B. (1999). " Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests" ["Development and evaluation of a speech intelligibility test for German I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test. "], Z. Audiologie 38, 4-15.
61. Wagener, K. C., Brand, T., and Kollmeier, B. (2006). " The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners.," Int. J. Audiol. 45, 26-33. 10.1080/14992020500243851
62. Wingfield, A., McCoy, S. L., Peelle, J. E., Tun, P. A., and Cox, L. C. (2006). " Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity.," J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 17, 487-497. 10.3766/jaaa.17.7.4
63. Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., and Festen, J. M. (2011). " Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: The influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response.," Ear Hear 32, 498-510. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820512bb