Recognition of digits in different types of noise by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

References

• Bacon S.P., Opie J.M., Montoya D.Y. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41: 549–563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duijvestijn J.A., Anteunis L.J., Hendriks J.J.T., Manni J. Definition of hearing impairment and its effect on prevalence figures. Acta Otolaryngol 1999; 119: 420–423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L.S., Dirks D.D., Bell T.S. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38: 222–233
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 90: 1725–1736
   Google Scholar
• Green D.M. Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 3749–3760
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gustafsson H.Å., Arlinger S.D. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 518–529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Attempts to develop an efficient speech test in fully modulated noise. Scand Audiol 1997; 26: 93–98
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Efficiency of speech audiometry and other tests. Br J Audiol 1993; 27: 423–425
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 321–329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard-Jones P.A., Rosen S. The perception of speech in fluctuating noise. Acustica 1993; 78: 258–272
   Google Scholar
• ISO 1998. ISO 389-1: Acoustics-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 1: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and supra-aural earphones. Geneva: International Standards Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Kaernbach C. Slope bias of psychometric functions derived from adaptive data. Percept Psychophys 2001; 63: 1389–1398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Laat J.A.P.M., Plomp R. The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. Hearing – physiological bases and psychophysics, R. Klinke, R. Hartmann. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1983; 359–363
   Google Scholar
• Miller G.A., Licklider J.C.R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1950; 22: 167–173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29: 146–154
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979a; 18: 43–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979b; 66: 1333–1342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J. A speech intelligibility index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117: 2181–2192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 421–437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schow R.L. Considerations in selecting and validating an adult/elderly hearing screening protocol. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 337–348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Kapteyn T.S., Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 15–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Houtgast T. Results from the Dutch speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 89–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Houtgast T. Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 1608–1621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strike P.W. Statistical methods in laboratory medicine. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford 1991; 307–330
   Google Scholar
• Stuart A., Philips D.P. Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusis listeners. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 478–489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurements of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107: 1671–1684
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 144–156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley T.L., Cruickshanks K.J., Nondahl D.M., Tweed T.S. Self-reported hearing handicap and audiometric measures in older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 67–75
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Weakley D.G. The use of digit triplets to evaluate word-recognition abilities in multi-talker babble. Sem Hear 2004; 25: 93–111
   Google Scholar