Speech Audiometry in Noise-exposed Workers: The SRT-PTA Relationship Revisited

References

• Tillman T W, Olsen W O. Speech audiometry. Modern Development in Audiology, 2nd ed, J J Jerger. Academic Press, New York 1973
   Google Scholar
• Davis H, Silverman R S. Hearing and Deafness, 4th ed. Rinehart & Winston, New York; Holt 1978
   Google Scholar
• Hopkinson N. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Speech reception threshold, 2nd ed., J Katz. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1978
   Google Scholar
• Berger K. Speech audiometry. Audiological Assessment, 2nd ed, D Rose. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York 1978
   Google Scholar
• Martin F N. Speech tests of hearing. Pediatric Audiology, F N Martin. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1978
   Google Scholar
• Noble W G. Assessment of Impaired Hearing. Academic Press, New York 1978
   Google Scholar
• Rupp R R. Classical approaches to the determination of the spondee threshold. Speech Protocols in Audiology, R R Rupp, K G Stockdell. Grune & Stratton, New York 1980
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R H, Margolis R H. Measurements of auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. Principles of Speech Audiometry, D F Konkle, W F Rintelmann. University Park Press, Baltimore 1983
   Google Scholar
• Schill H A. Thresholds for speech. Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 2nd ed, J Katz. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1985
   Google Scholar
• Martin F N. Introduction to Audiology, 3rd ed. N.J.; Prentice-Hall, Englewoods Cliffs 1986
   Google Scholar
• Kruger B, Mazor R M. Speech audiometry in the USA. Speech Audiometry, M Martin. Whurr, London 1987
   Google Scholar
• ASHA. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. Am Sp Hear Ass 1988; 30: 85–89
   Google Scholar
• Bess F Basic hearing measurement. Handbook of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, NX Reynolds Lass, LV, J L Northern, D E Yoder. Toronto, Decker 1988
   Google Scholar
• Bess F H, Humes L E. Audiology: The Fundamentals. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1990
   Google Scholar
• Silman S, Silverman C A. Auditory Diagnostic: Principles and Applications. Academic Press, Toronto 1991
   Google Scholar
• Olsen W O. Special auditory tests: a historical perspective. Diagnostic Audiology, J T Jacobson, J L Northern. Pro-Ed, Austin 1991
   Google Scholar
• Olsen W O, Matkin N D. Speech audiometry. Hearing Assessment, 2nd ed, W F Rintelmann. Pro-Ed, Austin 1991
   Google Scholar
• Ventry I M. Pure tone-spondee threshold relationships in functional hearing loss: a hypothesis. J Sp Hear Dis 1976; 41: 16–22
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newby H A. Audiology, 4th ed. N.J.; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1979
   Google Scholar
• Cooper J C. Speech protocols in the assessment of functional hearing loss. Speech Protocols in Audiology, R R Rupp, K G Stockdell. Grune & Stratton, New York 1980
   Google Scholar
• Crandell C C. Individual differences in speech recognition ability. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 100S–108S, (Suppl)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudghson W, Thompson E A. Correlation of hearing acuity for speech with discrete frequency audiograms. Arch Otol 1942; 36: 526–540
   Google Scholar
• Carhart R B. Monitored live-voice as a test of auditory acuity. J Acoust Soc Am 1946; 17: 339–349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carhart R B. Speech reception in relation to pattern of pure tone loss. J Sp Hear Dis 1946; 11: 97–108
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher H. A method of calculating hearing loss for speech from an audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 1950; 22: 1–5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quiggle R, Glorig A, Delk J, Summerfield A. Predicting hearing loss for speech from pure tone audiograms. Laryngoscope 1957; 67: 1–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graham J T. Evaluation of methods for predicting speech reception threshold. Arch Otol 1960; 72: 347–350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegenthaler B M, Strand R. Audiogram-average methods and SRT scores. J Acoust Soc Am 1964; 36: 589–595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carhart R B. Observations on relations between thresholds for pure tones and for speech. J Sp Hear Dis 1971; 36: 476–483
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carhart R B, Porter L S. Audiometric configuration and prediction of threshold for spondees. J. Sp Hear Res 1971; 14: 486–495
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strange W. Speech input and the development of speech perception. Otitis Media and Child Development, J F Kavanagh. York Press, Parkion 1986
   Google Scholar
• Gierut J, Pisoni D B. Speech perception. Handbook of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, N Lass, L V Reynolds, J L Northern, D E Yoder. Decker., Toronto 1988
   Google Scholar
• Lemme M L, Hedberg N L. Auditory linguistic processing. Handbook of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, N J Lass, L V Reynolds, J L Northern, D E Yoder. Decker, Toronto 1988
   Google Scholar
• Kent R D. Auditory processing of speech. Central Auditory Processing, J Katz, N Stecker, D Henderson. Mosby, St Louis 1992
   Google Scholar
• McGurk H, MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976; 264: 746–748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren R M. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 1970; 167: 392–393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller G A. Language and communication. McGraw-Hill, New York 1951
   Google Scholar
• Miller G A, Heise Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exper Psychol 1951; 41: 329–335
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalikow D N, Stevens K N, Elliott 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A, Niltrouer S. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 101–114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WGSUA. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 859–895
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nittrouer S, Boothroyd A. Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Amer 1990; 87: 2705–2715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J CGM, Plomp R. The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 90: 2985–2991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delhom F, Picard M, Barbarosie C. Lecoute avec implant cochleaire multi-canal: mediation cognitive et implications relatives aux strategies de réadaptation. J Sp Lang Pathol Audiol 1992; 16: 31–43
   Google Scholar
• Picard M, Ferron P, Rochette C, Meyer F, Bergeron F, Blaney D, Desgagne M. Etude multivariee de la perception auditive avec implant cochleaire multi-electrode. J Otol 1992; 21: 115–125
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rabinowitz W M, Eddington D K, Delhorne L A, Cuneo P A. Relations among different measures of speech reception in subjects using a cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1869–1881
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni D B, Luce P A. Trading relations, acoustic due integration, and context effects in speech perception. The Psycho-physics of Speech Perception, M EH Schouten. Martines Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1987
   Google Scholar
• Samuel A G. Lexical uniqueness effects on phonemic restoration. J Mem Lang 1987; 26: 36–56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eimas P D, Tajchman G, Nygaaard L C, Marcus D J. Phonemic restoration and integration during dichotic listening. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 99: 1141–1147
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bruce D J. Effects of context upon intelligibility of heard speech. Information Theory: Third London Symposium, C Cherry. Butterworth, London 1956
   Google Scholar
• Lebel C, Picard M. Influence du mode de réponse sur le seuil de reconnaissance de la parole chez fenfant francais québécois d aˇge scolaire. J Sp-Lang Path Audiol 1997; 21: 17–27
   Google Scholar
• Price R J, Ostendorf M, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Fong C. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. J Acoust Soc Am 199l, 90: 2956–2970
   Google Scholar
• Jerger S, Martin R, Pearson D A, Dinh T. Childhood hearing impairment: auditory and linguistic interactions during multidimensional speech processing. J Sp Hear Res 1995; 38: 930–948
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirsh I J, Davis H, Silverman R S, Reynolds E G, Eldert E, Benson R W. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Sp Hear Dis 1952; 17: 321–337
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tillman T, Jerger J F. Some factors affecting the spondee threshold in normal-hearing subjects. J Sp Hear Res 1959; 2: 141–146
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dreschler W. Reduced speech intelligibility and its psychophysical correlates in hearing impaired subjects. Psychophysical, Physiological and Behavioural Studies in Hearing, G van den Brink, F Bilsen. Delft University Press, Delft 1980
   Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P, Jesteadt W, Borga M, Mott J. Speech perception ability and psychophysical tuning curves in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 77: 620–627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J, Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73: 652–662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubno J R, Schaefer A B. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 2110–2121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letowski T, Hergenreder P, Tang H. Relationships between speech recognition threshold, average hearing level, and speech importance noise detection threshold. J Sp Hear Res 1992; 35: 1131–1136
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Preece J P, Fowler C G. Relationship of pure-tone averages to speech reception threshold for male and female speakers. J Amer Acad Audiol 1992; 3: 221–224
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tabachnich B G, Fidell L S. Using Multivariate Analysis. Harper and Row, New York 1983
   Google Scholar
• Barfod J. Speech perception processes and fitting of hearing aids. Audiology 1979; 18: 430–441
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jahner S A, Schlauch R A, Doyle T. A comparison of American Speech-Language Hearing Association guidelines for obtaining speech-reception thresholds. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 324–329
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Picard M. Laudiometrie vocale au Quebec fraiicais. Audiology 1984; 23: 337–365
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L E. Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing-impaired. J Am Acad Audiology 1991; 2: 56–69
   Google Scholar
• McLauchlin R M. Speech protocols in the assessment of persons with limited language abilities. Speech protocols in audiology, R R Rupp, K G Stockdell. Grune &Stratton, New York 1980
   Google Scholar
• van Rooij J CGM, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I: Development of test battery. J Acoust SocAm 1989; 86: 1294–1309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J CGM, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 2611–2624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J CGM, Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. Ill: additional data and final discussion. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 1028–1033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M K, Schneider B A, Daneman M. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 593–608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S. Effects of aging on response criteria in speech recognition tasks. J Sp Hear Res 1986; 29: 155–162
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Picard M. Materiel vocal franco-quebecois. 1989; vol. 2, Montreal; University of Montreal
   Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C V. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 413–422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay C, Picard M, Barbarosie T, Banville R. Etude clinique des decalages de seuil vocal dans le bruit. Audiology 1991; 30: 214–240
   Google Scholar
• Elliott L L. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with control word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66: 651–653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott L L, Connors S, Kille E, Levin S, Ball K, Katz D. Children's understanding of monosyllabic nouns in quiet and in noise. J Acoust SocAm 1979; 66: 12–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger S. Speech audiometry. Pediatric Audiology, J J Jerger. College Hill, San Diego 1984
   Google Scholar
• Lebel C. Test de seuil vocal en images pour enfants. 1991, Unpublished Master's thesis presented at University of Montreal
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre S. Dysfonctions auditives particulieres chez des enfants avec histoire dotites a répétition. 1991, Unpublished Master's thesis presented at University of Montreal
   Google Scholar
• Noble W G. The concept problem of functional hearing loss. Br JAudiol 1987; 21: 1–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bronkhorst A W, Bosman A J, Smoorenburg G F. A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acous SocAm 1993; 93: 499–509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. Speech perception, sensorineural hearing loss, and hearing aids. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed, G A Studebaker, I Hochberg. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1993
   Google Scholar
• Benoit C. An intelligibility test using semantically unpredictable sentences. Speech Comm 1990; 9: 293–304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant K W, Braida L D. Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual input. J Acous Soc Am 1991; 89: 2952–2960
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C V. Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. Am Sp Hear Ass 1988; 30(6)63–65
   Google Scholar
• Rankovic C M. An application of the Articulation Index to hearing aid fitting. J Sp Hear Res 1991; 34: 391–402
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L E, Riker M A. Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 406–409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker G A, Sherbecoe R L. Frequency-importance functions for speech recognition. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance, 2nd ed, G A Studebaker, I Hochberg. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1993
   Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C V. Problems in the prediction of speech recognition performance of normal-hearing and hearing impaired individuals. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed, G A Studebaker, I Hochberg. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1993
   Google Scholar
• Schum D J, Matthews L J, Fu-Shing L. Actual and predicted word-recognition performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Sp Hear Res 1991; 34: 636–642
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L E. Some temporal factors affecting speech recognition. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed, G A Studebaker, I Hochberg. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1993
   Google Scholar
• Dubno J R, Dirks D D. Factors affecting performance on psychoacoustic and speech-recognition tasks in the presence of hearing loss. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed, G A Studebaker, I Hochberg. Allyn and Bacon, Boston 1993
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker J A, Pavlovic C V, Sherbecoe R L. A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 1130–1138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee L, Humes L E. Evaluating a speech-reception threshold model for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acous Soc Amer 1993; 93: 2879–2885
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erber N P. Auditory Training. Alex. B. Bell Ass., Washington 1982
   Google Scholar
• Picard M, Llecki H J, Baxter J D. Clinical use of BOBCAT: testing reliability and validity of pure-tone computerized audiometry with noise-exposed workers, children and the aged. Audiology 1993; 32: 55–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc. Am 1978; 63: 533–549
   Google Scholar
• Picard M, Llecki H J, Baxter J D. Essai clinique du BOBCAT. Audiology 1988; 27: 234–246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI, American National Standard Specification for Audiometers. S3.6-1989. New York 1989
   Google Scholar
• Belsley D A, Kuh E, Welsch R E. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Colinearity. Wiley, New York 1980
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser H F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychom 1958; 23: 187–200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford J P. Psychometric Methods. McGraw Hill, New York 1954
   Google Scholar
• Winer B J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed. 1971, New York; McGraw Hill
   Google Scholar
• Kirk R E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Brooks/Cole, Belmont 1968
   Google Scholar