References
- Davis H, Silverman S R. Hearing and Deafness, ed 4. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1965
- Speaks C, Jerger J. Method for measurement of speech identification. J Speech Hear Res 1965; 8: 185–194
- Kalikov D N, Stevens K N, Elliot L L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337–1351
- Plomp R, Mimpen A M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979; 18: 43–52
- Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 1982; 11: 79–87
- Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13: 57–63
- Speaks C, Parker B, Harris C, Kuhl P. Intelligibility of connected discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1972; 15: 590–602
- Nakatani L H, Dukes K D. A sensitive test of speech communication quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1973; 53: 1083–1092
- Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: Application to hearing aid selection. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76: 758–766
- Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 1989; 32: 347–352
- Falconer G B, Davis H. The intelligibility of connected discourse as a test for the ‘threshold for speech’. Laryngoscope 1947; 57: 581–595
- Hawkins D B, Montgomery A A, Mueller H G, Sedge R K. Assessment of speech intelligibility by hearing-impaired listeners;. Noise as a Puhlic Health Problem: Hearing, Communication, Sleep and Nonauditory Physiological Effects., B Berglund, J Karlsson, T Lindvall. Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm 1988; vol 2, pp 241–246
- Hygge S, Rönnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech reversed speech and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 208–215
- Walker G, Byrne D. Reliability of speech intelligibility estimation for measuring speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Aust J Audiol 1985; 7: 23–31
- Smoorenburg G F. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 421–437
- ISO 389. Acoustics - Standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone air conduction audiometers. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva 1991
- IEC 645. Audiometers. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva 1979
- Danhauer J L, Leppler J G. Effects of four competitors on the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Disord 1979; 44: 354–362
- Giolas T G, Epstein A. Comparative intelligibility of word lists and continuous discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 6: 349–358
- Risberg A, Öhngren G. How do we measure speech perception ability? QSPL 1. Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 1989; 141–143
- Duquesnoy A J. Effect of single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74: 739–743
- Festen J M, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 1725–1736
- Arlinger S, Gustafsson HÅ. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Sound Vibration 1991; 151: 441–445
- Gustafsson HÅ, Arlinger S D. Masking of speech hy amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, in press
- Dirks D D, Bower D R. Masking effects of speech competing messages. J Speech Hear Res 1969; 12: 229–245
- Carhart R, Tillman T W. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch Otolaryngol 1970; 91: 273–279
- Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 63: 533–549
- Suter A H. Speech recognition in noise by individuals with mild hearing impairments. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 78: 887–900