How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise?

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), 53–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S3.1-1999 (R2008). Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. Washington, USA: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Aoyama K., Flege J.E., Guion S.G., Akahane-Yamada R. & Yamada T. 2004. Perceived phonetic dissimilarity and L2 speech learning: The case of Japanese /r/ and English /l/ and /r/. J Phonetics, 32, 233–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. & Nittrouer S. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84(1), 101–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradlow A.R. & Alexander J.A. 2007. Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2339–2349.
   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
• Brand T., Wittkop T., Wagener K. & Kollmeier B. 2004. Vergleich von Oldenburger Satztest und Freiburger Wörtertest als geschlossene Versionen. 7. DGA Jahrestagung, Leipzig, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (Cambridge University Press). Online version: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp>
   Google Scholar
• Cutler A., Weber A., Smits R. & Cooper N. 2004. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 3668–3678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz A., Buschermöhle M., Aarnisalo A.A., Vanhanen A., Hyyrynen T. et al. 2014. The development and evaluation of the Finnish matrix sentence test for speech intelligibility assessment. Acta Otolaryngol, 134(7), 728–737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezzatian P., Aviv M. & Schneider B.A. 2010. Do non-native listeners benefit as much as native listeners from spatial cues that release speech from masking? Speech Commun, 52, 919–929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florentine M. & Buus S. 1984. Temporal gap detection in sensorineural and simulated hearing impairment. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 449–455.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Florentine M., Buus S., Scharf B. & Canavet G. 1984. Speech reception thresholds in noise for native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 75, S84.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall S. 2006. The development of a new English sentence in noise test and on English number recognition. MSc thesis, University of Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Hallgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitt D.R. 2008. Evaluation of an English speech-in-noise audiometry test. Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics Institute of Sound and Vibration Research (University of Southampton).
   Google Scholar
• Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M.A., Zenker C.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
• Houben R., Koopman J., Luts H., Wagener K.C., van Wieringen A. et al. 2014. Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 53(10), 760–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K., Kollmeier B., Del Rio M. 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
• Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K., Frachet B. & Wouters J. 2010. The French digit triplet test: A hearing-sreening tool for speech intelligiblity in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 378–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N. & Elliot 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
• Kilman L., Zekveld A., Hällgren M. & Rönnberg J. 2014. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol, 5, 651, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Warzybok A., Hochmuth S., Zokoll M., Uslar V. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B. 1990. Messmethodik, Modellierung und Verbesserung der Verständlichkeit von Sprache. (in German). (Methodology, modeling, and improvement of speech intelligibility measurements). Habilitation thesis, University of Göttingen.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B. & Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 1085–1099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecumberri M.L.G., Cooke M. & Cutler A. 2010. Non-native perception in adverse conditions: A review. Speech Commun, 52, 864–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez S.M., Martin F.N. & Thilbodeau L.M. 1997. Performance of monolingual and bilingual speakers of English and Spanish on the Sythetic Sentence Identification test. Am J Audiol, 6, 33–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luts H., Boon E., Wable J. & Wouters J. 2008. FIST: A French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 373–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo L.H., Florentine M. & Buus S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 686–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J.B. & Dau T. 2009. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test. Int J Audiol, 48, 729–741.
   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
• Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sek A. & Wicher A. 2009. Development and evaluation of Polish digit triplet test for auditory screening. Speech Commun, 51, 307–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sek A. & Wicher A. 2009. Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise. Int J Audiol, 48, 433–443.
   PubMed 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
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudmin F. 1987. Speech reception threshold for digits. J Aud Res, 27(1), 15–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi L.F. 2009. Normal-hearing English-as-a-second-language: Listeners’ recognition of English words in competing signals. Int J Audiol, 48, 260–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Theo Goversts T.S. & Festen J.F. 2013The digits-in-noise test: Assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 1693–1706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C. & Houtgast T. 2006. Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 120(3), 1608–1621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C., Kapteyn T.S. & Houtgast T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol, 43, 15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soli S.D. (ed.). 2008. Assessment of Speech Communication Handicap [special issue]. Int J Audiol, 47, 285–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speaks C. & Jerger J. 1965Method for measurement of speech identification. J Speech Hear Res, 8 (1), 185–194.
   Google Scholar
• Uslar V., Ruigendijk E., Hamann C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2011. How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test? Int J Audiol, 50, 621–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uslar V., Ruigendijk Kollmeier B. & Brand T. 2014. Speech perception, age, and hearing loss: Methods to assess the balance between bottom-up and top-down processing. PhD Thesis, Publisher: Berlin: Winter Industries, ISBN: 978-3-86624-608-9.
   Google Scholar
• van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J. & Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1906–1916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wijngaarden S.J., Bronkhorst A.W., Houtgast T. & Steeneken H.J. 2004. Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 115(3), 1281–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K. 2009. Report on an optimized inventory of speech-based auditory screening & impairment tests for six languages. Public report, available online at < http://hearcom.eu/about/DisseminationandExploitation/deliverables.html>
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test II: Optimalization of the Oldenburg sentence tests (in German). Z Audiol, 38, 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test (in German). Z Audiol, 38, 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test (in German). Z Audiol, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Eeenboom F., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2005a. Ziffern-Tripel-Test: Sprachverstandlichkeitstest uber das Telefon. 8. DGA Jahrestangung, Göttingen, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2005b. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. 2006. Evaluation des Ziffern-Tripel-Tests über Telefon. 9. DGA Jahrestagung, Köln, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek Boboshko M. et al. 2015. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol, published online April 6, doi:10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt D., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2014. An eye-tracking paradigm for analysing the processing time of sentences with different linguistic complexities using eye movements to detect decision moments during sentence recognition: When is a complex sentence understood? PLoS One, vol. 9 (6), pp. e100186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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(1), 175–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zokoll M.A., Wagener K.C., Brand T., Buschermöhle M. & Kollmeier B. 2012. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: The German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype. Int J Audiol, 51, 697–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar