Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 54, Issue , 2015, Pages 62-70

  Hochmuth, Sabine ^a   Kollmeier, Birger ^a,b   Brand, Thomas ^a   Jürgens, Tim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b HoerTech GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

fluctuating noise; German; intelligibility; matrix sentence test; multitalker babble; Polish; Russian; Spanish; speech intelligibility index (SII); Speech reception threshold (SRT); stationary noise

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MULTILINGUALISM; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MULTILINGUALISM; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84949183721     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1046502     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abercrombie D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2. ANSI-3.5. 1997. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. American National Standard S3.5-1997 (Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America).
3. Auditec. 2006. CD101RW2, Audio CD. St. Louis, USA, 2515 www.auditec.com (last viewed 08/25/11).
4. Beutelmann R, Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2010. Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 2479-2497.
5. 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.
6. Bradlow A.R, Torretta G.M. & Pisoni D.B. 1996. Intelligibility of normal speech. I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Com, 20, 255-272.
7. Byrne D. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108-2120.
8. Dreschler W., Verschuure H.,Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegiums for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology, 40, 148-157.
9. Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2002. Benet of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2897-2907.
10. Festen J. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
11. Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2011. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. Int J Audiol, 50, 2-13.
12. Gustafsson H. & Arlinger S. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518-529.
13. Hagerman B. 1997. Attemps to develop an efficient speech test in fully modulated noise. Scand Audiol, 26, 93-98.
14. Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M.A., Zenker Castro F., Wardenga N. et al. 2012. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 51, 536-544.
15. ISO. 2004. Acoustics-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones.
16. ISO 389-8:2004. International Organization for Standardization
17. Jansen S. et al. 2012. Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multi-center study. Int J Audiol, 51, 164-173.
18. Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167-173.
19. Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 444-454.
20. Peters R., Moore B.C.J. & 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, 577-587.
21. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I. & Braida L.D. 1985. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 96-103.
22. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I. & Braida L.D. 1986. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 434446.
23. Rennies J, Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2011. Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 2999-3012.
24. Simpson S.A. & Cooke M. 2005. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 2775-2778.
25. Sommers M.S. and Barcroft J. 2006. Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: Effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 2406-2416.
26. Sommers M.S., Kirk K.I. & Pisoni D.B. 1997. Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normalhearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format. Ear Hear, 18, 89-99.
27. Wagener K.C. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144-156.
28. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache, Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (in German) (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test, Part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence tests). Z Audiol, 38, 44-56.
29. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache, Teil III: Evaluierung des Oldenburger Satztests (in German) (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test, Part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 86-95.
30. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol, 45, 26-33.
31. Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjær R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17.
32. Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache, Teil I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (in German) (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test. Part I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 4-15.
33. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2007. International cross-validation of sentence intelligibility tests. EFAS 2007, Heidelberg, Germany.
34. Warzybok A, Wardenga N, Ozimek E, Zokoll M, Boboshko M & Kollmeier B. 2015. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol, DOI 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969.
35. Zokoll M.A., Hochmuth S., Warzybok A., Wagener K.C., Buschermöhle M. et al. 2013. Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics. Am J Audiol, 22, 130-133.