Selection of test-setup parameters to target specific signal-to-noise regions in speech-on-speech intelligibility testing

References

• Bernstein, J.G. & Brungart, D.S. 2011. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 473–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J.G., Summers, V., Iyer, N. & Brungart, D.S. 2012. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 2676–2689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J.G.W. & Grant, K.W. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3358–3372.
   PubMed 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, 101–114.
   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
• Bronkhorst, A.W. 2000. The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust United Acust, 86, 117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst, A.W. & Plomp, R. 1990. A clinical test for the assessment of binaural speech perception in noise. Audiology, 29, 275–285.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brungart, D.S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart, D.S. & Simpson, B.D. 2007. Cocktail party listening in a dynamic multitalker environment. Percept Psychophys, 69, 79–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, C.F.C. & Dau, T. 2012. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 1655–1666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 2009. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences: Second edition. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desjardins, J.L. & Doherty, K.A. 2013. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear, 34, 261–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosselin, P.A. & Gagné, J.-P. 2011. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int J Audiol, 50, 786–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laugesen, S., Jensen, N.S., Pedersen, J.H. & Hietkamp, R.K. 2012. Towards a spatial speech-in-speech test that takes SNR confounds and ecological validity into account. International Hearing Aid Research Conference; Lake Tahoe.
   Google Scholar
• Marrone, N., Mason, C.R. & Kidd, G. 2008. The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 3064–3075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J., Johnson, J.S., Clark, T.M. & Pluvinage, V. 1992. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear, 13, 349–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor, G. 2016. Theoretical issues of validity in the measurement of aided speech reception threshold in noise for comparing nonlinear hearing aid systems. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, 504–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor, G. & Johannesson, R.B. 2009. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 161–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher, T., Behrens, T., Carlile, S., Jin, C., Kragelund, L., et al. 2009. Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition. Int J Audiol, 48, 758–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, E.H.N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T. & Rönnberg, J. 2015. Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear, 36, 82–91.
   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
• Nielsen, J.B. & Dau, T. 2011. The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 50, 202–208.
   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
• 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
• Reel, L.A. & Hicks, C.B. 2012. Selective auditory attention in adults: Effects of rhythmic structure of the competing language. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 89–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rønne, F.M., Jensen, N.S., Hietkamp, R.K. & Pedersen, J.H. 2013. Magnitude of speech-reception-threshold manipulators for a spatial speech-in-speech test that takes signal-to-noise ratio confounds and ecological validity into account. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics. Montreal, Canada: Acoustical Society of America, p. 50069.
   Google Scholar
• Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B. & Hafter, E. 2009. Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds, K., Wolters, F. & Rung, M. 2015. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 183–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente, M., Fabry, D. & Potts, L.G. 1995. Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 440–449.
   PubMedGoogle 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