Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation?

References

• Akeroyd M.A., Arlinger S., Bentler R.S., Boothroyd A., Dillier N. et al. 2015. International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. Int J Audiol, Early online, 1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S3.1-1999 (R2008). Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms, Washington, D.C.: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Auditec. 2006. CD101RW2, Audio CD, Auditec, St. Louis, USA, 2515 www.auditec.com (Last viewed 08/25/11).
   Google Scholar
• Bond Z.S. & Moore T.J. 1994. A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Com, 14, 325–337.
   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
• 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
• 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
• Clopper C.G. & Bradlow A.R. 2008. Perception of dialect variation in noise: Intelligibility and classification, Lang Speech, 51, 175–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz A. et al. 2014. The development and evaluation of the Finnish matrix sentence test for speech intelligibility assessment, Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 134, 728–737.
   PubMed 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
• Ferguson S.H. & Kewley-Port D. 2002. Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 259–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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, 84.
   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
• 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
• Hochmuth S., Kollmeier B., Brand T. & Jürgens T. 2015. Influence of noise type on speech reception thresholds across four languages measured with matrix sentence tests. Int J Audiol, (this issue).
   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, International Standard 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 multicenter study, Int J Audiol, 51, 164–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang J. 1998. Comparison of speech intelligibility between English and Chinese. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1213–1216.
   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, online first. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause J.C. & Braida L.D. 2002. Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: The effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 2165–2172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause J.C. & Braida L.D. 2004. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates, J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 362–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane H. 1963. Foreign accent and speech distortion. J Acoust Soc Am, 35, 451–453.
   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
• McCloy D.R., Wright R.A. & Souza P.E. 2015. Talker versus dialect effects on speech intelligibility: A symmetrical study. Language and Speech, first published on December 4, 2014 doi: 10.1177/0023830914559234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro M.J. & Derwing T.M. 2001. Modeling perceptions of accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 451–468.
   Google Scholar
• Picheny M.A., Durlach N.L & 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.L & Braida L.D. 1989. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing III: An attempt to determine the contribution of speaking rate to difference in intelligibility between clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 600–603.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Riney T.J., Takada M. & Ota M. 2000. Segmentals and global foreign accent: The Japanese flap in EFL. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 711–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchansky R.M., Choi S.S., Braida L.D., Reed C.M. & Durlach N.I. 1996. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing IV: Further studies of the role of speaking rate. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 494–509.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands. Int J Audiol, 47, 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 3004–3013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671–1684.
   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, 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. 1999. 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
• Warzybok A., Brand T., Wagener K.C. & Kollmeier B. 2015a. How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise? Int J Audiol, (this issue).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek Boboshko M. & Kollmeier B. 2015b. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol, (this issue).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeni-Komshian G.H., Flege J.E. & Liu S. 2000. Pronunciation proficiency in the first and second languages of Korean English bilinguals. Language and Cognition, 3, 131–149.
   Google Scholar