How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test?

References

• 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), 125–143.
   Google Scholar
• Bader M., Bayer J. 2006. Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bates E., Wulfeck B., McWhinney B. 1991. Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain Lang, 41, 123–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borer H., Wexler K. 1987. The maturation of syntax. T. Roeper, E. Williams. Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, 123–172.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caplan D., Waters G. 1999. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Brain Behav Sci, 22, 77–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza A., Zurif E. 1976. Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain Lang, 3, 572–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherry E.C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 975–979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• DIN 45621 1973. Teil 1: Wörter für Gehörprüfung mit Sprache. Deutsche Elektrotechnische Kommision. Fachnormenausschuß Elektrotechnik im DIN und VDE (DKE).
   Google Scholar
• Friederici A.D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cog Sci, 6, 78–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici A.D., Fiebach C.J., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel I., von Cramon Y.D. 2006. Processing linguistic complexity and grammaticality in the left frontal cortex. Cereb Cortex, 16, 1709–1717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann N., Gvion A. 2003. Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation: A dissociation between semantic and phonological encoding. Brain Lang, 86, 23–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann N., Novogrodsky R. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. J Child Lang, 31, 661–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox D., Grodzinsky Y. 1998. Children’s passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguist Inq, 29, 311–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L.J., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295–2311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L.J., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. . 2007. Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2362–2375.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson E. 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodzinsky Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behav Brain Sci, 23, 1–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasher L., Zacks R.T. 1988. Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. G.H. Bower. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York, NY: Academic Press, 22, 193–225.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E. . 1952. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord, 17, 321–337.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev, 99, 122–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N., 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 102, 2412–2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mak W.M., Vonk W., Schriefers H. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. J Mem Lang, 54, 466–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattys S.L., Brooks J., Cooke M. 2009. Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cog Psy, 59 (3), 203–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musolino J., Crain S., Thornton R. 2000. Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguist, 38, 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson M.J., Soli S.D., Sullivan J. 1994. Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldfield R.C., Wingfield A. 1965. Response latencies in naming objects. Q J Exp Psychol, 17, 273–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shapiro L.P., Levine B. 1990. Verb processing during sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain Lang, 38, 21–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro L.P., Zurif E., Grimshaw J. 1987. Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition, 27, 219–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro L.P., Zurif E., Grimshaw J. 1989. Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. J Psycholinguist Res, 18, 223–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Lely H., Harris M. 1990. Comprehension of reversible sentences in specifically language impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord, 55, 101–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagener K., Kühnel V., Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acoust, 38, 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T., Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acoust, 38, 44–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T., Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol/Audiol Acousti, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wingfield A., McCoy S.L., Peelle J.E., Tun P.A., 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong L.L.N., Ho A.H.S., Chua E.W.W., Soli S.D. 2007. Development of the Cantonese speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 4, 2350–2361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zweig E., Pylkkänen L. 2009. A visual M170 effect of morphological complexity. Lang Cogn Process, 24, 3, 412–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurif E., Swinney D., Prather P., Wingfield A., Brownell H. 1995. The allocation of memory resources during sentence comprehension: Evidence from the elderly. J Psycholinguist Res, 24, 165–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar