Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system

References

• ANSI 1969. ANSI S3.5-1969 American national standard methods for the calculation of the articulation index. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI 1997. American National Standard: Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Society of America.
   Google Scholar
• Auditec. 2006. CD101RW2, audio CD, Auditec, St. Louis, USA, 2515http://www.auditec.com.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley J.S., Sato H., Picard M. 2003. On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 3233–3244.
   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
• Cooke M. 2006. A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(3), 1562–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis S. & Mermelstein P. 1980. Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 28(4), 357–366.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W. A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. Icra noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiol, 40(3), 148–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ETSI standard document 2003. Speech Processing, Transmission and Quality aspects (STQ); Distributed speech recognition; Front-end feature extraction algorithm; Compression algorithm. ETSI Standard 201 108 V1.1.3.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher H. & Galt R.H. 1950. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22(2), 89–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraunhofer IDMT. 2014. SIP Toolbox, http://www.idmt.fraunhofer.de/en/Service_Offerings/products_and_technologies/q_t/sip-toolbox.html
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmuth S., Jürgens T., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2015. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests. Int J Audiol., 54, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1046502. [22 June 2015]
   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
• Hohmann V. & Kollmeier B. 1995. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(2), 1191–1195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holube I. & Kollmeier B. 1996. Speech intelligibility prediction in hearing‐impaired listeners based on a psychoacoustically motivated perception model. J Acoust Soc Am, 100(3), 1703–1716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen S. & Dau T. 2011. Predicting speech intelligibility based on the signal-to-noise envelope power ratio after modulation-frequency selective processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 130(3), 1475–1487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen S., Ewert S.D. & Dau T. 2013. A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 134(1), 436–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jürgens T. & Brand T. 2009. Microscopic prediction of speech recognition for listeners with normal hearing in noise using an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am, 126(5), 2635–2648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Warzybok A., Hochmuth S., Zokoll M., Uslar V.N. et al. 2015. The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications and comparison across languages: A review. Int J Audiol, 54, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kryter K.D. 1962. Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34(11), 1689–1697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijon A. 2002. Estimation of sensory information transmission using a hidden Markov model of speech stimuli. Acta Acust united with Acustica, 88(3), 423–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lochner J. & Burger J. 1964. The influence of reflections on auditorium acoustics. J Sound Vib, 1, 426–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen C. 1993. The use of objective measures to predict the intelligibility of hearing aid processed speech. In: J. Beilin and G. R. Jensen (eds.) Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology. Kolding, Denmark: Scanticon, pp. 81–94.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer B., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2009. Effect of speech-intrinsic variations on human and automatic speech phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 388–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer R.M. & Brand T. 2013. Comparison of different short-term speech intelligibility index procedures in fluctuating noise for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Acta acustica united with Acustica, 99, 442–456.
   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
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J. & Dreschler W.A. 2009. The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 126(6), 3236–3245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadler S., Leijon A. & Hagerman B. 2007. An information theoretic approach to predict speech intelligibility for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. In: Proceedings of Interspeech 2007, 398–401.
   Google Scholar
• Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 1980. Physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 318–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Mackinnon R.C. & Moore B.C.J. 2011. The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in ‘steady’ background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 2874–2881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C. & Moore B.C.J. 2012. Notionally steady background noise acts primarily as a modulation masker of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 317–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., 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., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache. Teil III: Evaluation 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., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache 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
• Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek E., Boboshko M. et al. 2015. Development of the Russian Matrix Sentence Test. Int J Audiol, 54, doi:10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969.[6 April 2015]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warzybok A., Rennies J., Brand T., Doclo S. & Kollmeier B. 2013. Effects of spatial and temporal integration of a single early reflection on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 269–282.
   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
• Young S., Evermann G., Gales M., Hain T., Kershaw et al. 2006. The HTK book (for HTK version 3.4). Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2(2), 2–3.
   Google Scholar