Normal and Hearing-Impaired Word Recognition Scores for Monosyllabic Words in Quiet and Noise

References

• American National Standards Institute American national standard specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6–1989) Author New York, NY 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, R. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Dis 1989 54 20–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie, RC, Raffin, MJM Reliability of threshold, slope, and PB Max for monosyllabic words. J Speech Hear Dis 1985 50 166–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie, RC, Warren, VG. Relationships among speech threshold, loudness discomfort, comfortable loudness, and PB max in the elderly hearing impaired. Am J Otol 1982 3 353–358.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie, R, Zipp, J. Range of intensities yielding PB Max and the threshold for monosyllablic words for hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Dis 1990 55 417–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie, RC, Edgerton, BJ, Svihovec, D. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU–6 and CID W-22 on a normal hearing population. J Speech Hear Dis 1977 42 60–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie, RC, Svihovec, DA, Carmen, RE, Kunkel, HA. Loudness discomfort level for speech: Comparison of two instructional sets for saturation sound pressure level selection. Ear and Hearing 1980 1 197–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, KW, Hagberg, EN, Rane, RL. Prescription of hearing aids — rationale, procedures and results Herald Publishing House Kent, OH 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Bruning, JL, Kintz, BL. Computational Handbook of Statistics 3rd edn. Scott, Foresman and Company Glenview, IL 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Carhart, R. Monaural and binaural discrimination against competing sentences. Int Audiol 1965 4 5–10.
   Google Scholar
• Carhart, R, Tillman, TW. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch Otolaryngol 1970 91 273–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, J, Cutts, B. Speech discrimination in noise. J Speech Hear Res. 1971 14 332–337.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crandell, CC, Smaldino, JJ. Classroom acoustics. Auditory Disorders in School Children 3rd edn. Roeser, RJ, Downs, MP Thieme Medical Publishers New York 1995 219–234.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, H. The effect of test difficulty on the sensitivity of speech discrimination tests. J Acoust Soc Am 1983 73 336–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirks, DD, Kamm, CA, Dubno, JR, Velde, TM. Speech recognition performance at loudness discomfort level. Scand Audiol 1981 10 239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirks, DD, Morgan, DE, Dubno, JR. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Dis 1982 47 114–123.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno, JR, Dirks, DD. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a nonsense-syllable test — I. Test reliability. J Speech Hear Res. 1982 25 135–141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno, JF, Levitt, H. Predicting consonant confusions from acoustic analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 1981 69 249–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy, AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983 74 739–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgerton, BJ, Danhauer, JL. Clinical implications of speech discrimination testing using nonsense stimuli University Park Press Baltimore 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Flexer, C. Management of hearing in an educational setting. Rehabilitative Audiology — Children and Adults, 2nd edn. Alpiner, JG, McCarthy, PA Williams and Wilkins Baltimore 1993 176–210.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, T, Craig, CH. Comparison of the Auditec and Rintelmann recordings of the NU-6. J Speech Hear Dis 1984 49 267–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear 1990 11 57S–65S Supplement.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1994 15 30–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S, Haggard, MP. The effects of airbone gap and presentation level on word identification. Ear Hear 1987 8 140–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman, B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984 13 57–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, IJW. II Diagnostic applications of speech audiometry. Seminars Hear 1983 4 179–204.
   Google Scholar
• Jerger, J, Hayes, D. Hearing aid evaluation — clinical experience with a new philosophy. Arch Otolaryngol 1976 102 214–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger, S, Jerger, J. Auditory Disorders — A Manual for Clinical Evaluation Little, Brown, and Company Boston 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Kalikow, DN, Stevens, KN, Elliott, LL. 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
• Loven, FC, Hawkins, DB. Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22 word lists presented in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear 1983 4 91–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, BCJ, Johnson, JS, Clark, TM, Pluvinage, V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992a 13 349–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, BCJ, Lynch, C, Stone, MA. Effects of fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 1992b 26 369–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales-Garcia, C, Poole, J. Masked speech audiometry in central deafness. Acta Otolaryngologic 1972 74 307–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, HG, Bright, KE. Monosyllabic procedures in central testing. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Katz, J. Williams and Wilkins Baltimore 1994 222–238.
   Google Scholar
• Nabelek, AK, Nabelek, IV. Room acoustics and speech perception. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Katz, J. Williams and Wilkins Baltimore 1994 624–637.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, DA, Chaiklin, JB. Writedown versus talk-back scoring and scoring bias in speech discrimination testing. J Speech Hear Res. 1970 13 645–654.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olsen, WO, Noffsinger, D. Comparison of one new and three old tests of auditory adaptation. Arch Otolaryngol 1974 99 94–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, E, Schubert, ED. Development of the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Res. 1976 20 463–174.
   Google Scholar
• Pearsons, KS, Bennett, RL, Fidell, S. Speech levels in various noise environments. Report No. EPA-600/1–77–025 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Ecological Effects, Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Penrod, JP. Speech threshold and word recognition/discrimination testing. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 4th edn. Katz, J. Williams and Wilkins Baltimore 1994 147–164.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp, R. Acoustical aspects of cocktail parties. Acustica 1977 38 186–191.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp, R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res. 1986 29 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp, R, Mimpen, AM. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979 66 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schow, RL, Gatehouse, S. Fundamental issues of self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear 1990 11 6S–16S Supplement.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwartz, DM, Surr, RK, Montgomery, AA, Prosek, RA, Walden, BE. Performance of high frequency impaired listeners with conventional and extended high frequency amplification. Audiol 1979 18 157–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schiavetti, N, Sitler, RW, Metz, DE, Houde, RA. Prediction of contextual speech intelligibility from isolated word intelligibility measures. J Speech Hear Res. 1984 27 623–626.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Speaks, C, Karmen, JL, Benitez, L. Effect of a competing message on synthetic sentence identification. J Speech Hear Res. 1967 10 390–396.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stecker, NA. Central auditory processing: Implications in audiology. Central Auditory Processing: A Transdisciplinary View Katz, J, Stecker, NA, Henderson, D. Mosby-Year Book St Louis 1992 117–127.
   Google Scholar
• Studdert-Kennedy, M, Shankweiler, D. Hemispheric specialization for speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 1970 48 579–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton, AR, Raffin, MJ. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res. 1978 21 507–518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Webster, JC, Snell, KB. Noise levels and the speech intelligibility of teachers in classrooms. J Rehab Audiol 1983 16 234–255.
   Google Scholar