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

References

• Abercrombie D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI-3.5. 1997. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. American National Standard S3.5-1997 (Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America).
   Google Scholar
• Auditec. 2006. CD101RW2, Audio CD. St. Louis, USA, 2515 www.auditec.com (last viewed 08/25/11).
   Google Scholar
• Beutelmann R, Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2010. Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 2479–2497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D. et al.1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2002. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2897–2907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2011. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. Int J Audiol, 50, 2–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson H. & Arlinger S. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1997. Attemps to develop an efficient speech test in fully modulated noise. Scand Audiol, 26, 93–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. ISO 389-8:2004. International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G.A. & Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 444–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers M.S., Kirk K.I. & Pisoni D.B. 1997. Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: The effects of response format. Ear Hear, 18, 89–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   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, 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2007. International cross-validation of sentence intelligibility tests. EFAS 2007, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar