Modelling the speech reception threshold in non-stationary noise in hearing-impaired listeners as a function of level

References

• ANSI. 1969. ANSI S3.5-1969, Methods for the calculation of the articulation index. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI. 2004. ANSI S3.6-2004, American national standard methods for specification for audiometers. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI. 1997. ANSI S3.5-1997, American national standard methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Katsch R., Byrne D. 2001. Maximising effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear, 22, 212–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Laat J.A.P.M., Plomp R. The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. R. Klinke, R. Hartman, Hearing: Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 359–363.
   Google Scholar
• de Laat J.A.P.M. 1989. The perception of fluctuating sounds by hearing-impaired listeners. Doctoral thesis, Free University, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R., Ahlstrom J.B. 2003. Recovery from prior stimulation: Masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal-hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy A.J. 1983. The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 1136–1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. 1987. Speech-reception threshold in a fluctuating background sound and its possible relation to temporal resolution. M.E.H. Schouten, The Psychophysics of Speech Perception. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 461–466.
   Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M., Plomp R. 2002. Application of the speech transmission index to the hearing impaired. S.J. van Wijngaarden Past, Present and Future of the Speech Transmission Index. Soesterberg: TNO Human Factors, 69–78.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon-Sallant S. 2005. Hearing loss and aging: New research findings and clinical implications. J Rehabil Res Dev, 42, 9–24.
   Google Scholar
• Houtgast T., Festen J.M. 2008. On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 6, 287–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. (2000). Acoustics - Statistical Distribution of Hearing Thresholds as a Function of Age. ISO 7029. Geneva: ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2412–2421.
   Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen C. 1985. Relations among some psychoacoustic parameters in normal and cochlearly-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1271–1280.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson D.A., Freyman R.L. 1987. Temporal resolution in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 81, 709–720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson P.B., Jin S.H., Carney A.E., Nelson D.A. 2003. Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 961–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noordhoek I.M., Houtgast T., Festen J.M. 2000. Measuring the threshold for speech reception by adaptive variation of the signal bandwidth. II. Hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1685–1696.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patterson R.D., Nimmo-Smith I., Weber D.L., Milroy R. 1982. The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 1788–1803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C.V. 1987. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 413–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters R.W., Moore B.C., 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Singh G. 2006. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif, 10(1), 29–59.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. 1979b. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as function of age and level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception-threshold of the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J. 2005. 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, 117, 2181–2192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J., Dreschler W.A. 2006. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 106 (6), 3988–3997.
   Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J., Dreschler W.A. 2008. Prediction of the intelligibility for speech in real-life background noises for subjects with normal hearing. Ear Hear, 29, 169–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherbecoe R.L., Studebaker G.A. 2003. Audibility-Index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners’ performance on the Connected Speech Test. Ear Hear, 24, 71–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart A., Phillips D.P. 1997. Word recognition in continuous noise, interrupted noise, and in quiet by normal-hearing listeners at two sensation levels. Scan Audiol, 26, 112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S. 1986. Frequency resolution in hearing-impaired listeners. B.C.J. Moore Frequency Selectivity in Hearing, London: Academic Press, 309–371.
   Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Dreschler W.A. 2002. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 401–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (1), 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Working group on speech understanding and aging. 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar