Comparison of calculated, measured and self-assessed intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-aid users

References

• ANSI S3.5. American national standard methods for calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Labora-tories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986;7: 257–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103:1128–40.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H. A procedure for subjective quality ratings of hearing aids. NAL report no. 100. Sydney: National Acoustic Laboratories, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Gombein JA. Subjective judgements of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear Hear 1997;18: 294–306.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Takayanagi S, Martinez AS. Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998;41: 327–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French NR, Steinberg JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am1947;19:90–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabrielsson A, Schenkman BN, Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgements and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 1988;31:166–77.
   Google Scholar
• Gabrielsson A, Sj8gren H. Perceived sound quality of hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1979;8:159–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Speech tests as measures of outcome. Scand Audiol 1998;27\(Suppl. 49):54–60.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Reliability in the determination of speech discrimination. Scand Audiol 1976;5:219–28.
   Google Scholar
• IEC 645–2. Equipment for Speech Audiometry. Gene-va: International Electrotechnical Commission, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 8253–1. Acoustics - audiometric test methods. Part 1: Basic pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Israelsson B. A new device allowing fast and blind paired comparison between different hearing aids - acoustc characteristics. In: Hearing aids for the new millennium. Sydney, Australia: NAL, 1999. Confer-ence Proceeding 15–19 Nov.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G. The relationship between listening condi-tions and alternative amplification schemes for multiple memory hearing aids. Ear Hear 1995;16:575–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G, Dillon H, Byrne D. Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics. Ear Hear 1995;16: 562–74.
   Google Scholar
• Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Ringdahl A, Israelsson B. Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday use after prescriptive fitting. Ear Hear 1990;11:299–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Ringdahl A, Israelsson B. Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. Ear Hear 1991;12:251–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidén G. Speech audiometry - an experimental and clinical study with Swedish language material. Acta Otolaryngol 1954\(Suppl. 114). pp. 1–145 (all pages).
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson L. Reliable clinical determination of speech recognition scores sing Swedish PB words in speech-weighted noise. Scand Audiol 1995;24:217–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L. Speech intelligibility index transfer functions and speech spectra for two Swedish speech recognition tests. Scand Audiol 1996a;25:59–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L. Predicting the speech recognition performance of elderly individuals with sensorineural hearing impairment: a procedure based on the speech intelligibility index. Scand Audiol 1996b;25:215–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L, 'Carlsson M, Leijon A. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification. Ear Hear, 2001;22:46–57.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller G, Grimes A. Hearing aid selection and assessment. In: Alpiner J, McCarthy P, eds. Rehabili-tative audiology: children and adults, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1993, pp. 284–310.
   Google Scholar
• Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;80:50–7.
   Google Scholar
• Purdy SC, Pavlovic CV. Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and
   Google Scholar
• Rankovic CM. Derivation of frequency-gain charac-teristics for maximizing speech reception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:913–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rankovic CM. Factors governing speech reception benefits of adaptive linear filtering for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103: 1043–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringdahl A, Israelsson B, Caprin L. Paired compari-sons between the Classic 300 bone-anchored and conventional bone-conduction hearing aids in terms of sound quality and speech intelligibility. Br J Audiol 1995;29: 299 —307.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker GA. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985;28:455–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker GA, Bisset JD, Van Ort DM, Hoffnung SU. Paired comparison judgements of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1982;72:80–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists. J Speech Hear Res 1991;34:427–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Dijkhuizen JN, Anema PC, Plomp R. The effect of varying the slope of the amplitude—frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;81:465–9.
   Google Scholar
• Zurek PM, Delhome LA. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:1548 — 59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar