Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests

References

• Akeroyd M.A. 2008. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol, 47, S53–S71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen J.B. Berkeley D.A. 1979. Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 65, 943–950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: ANSI S3.5–1997.
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2005. Guidelines for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry [Guidelines]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
   Google Scholar
• Barrenäs M. Wikström I. 2000. The influence of hearing and age on speech recognition scores in audiological patients and in the general population. Ear Hear, 21, 569–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell T.S. Wilson R.H. 2001. Sentence recognition materials based on frequency of word use and lexical confusability. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 514–522.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bellis T.J. 2003a. Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in the Educational Setting From Science to Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Thomson Delmar Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Bellis T.J. 2003b. Auditory processing disorders: It's not just kids who have them. The Hearing Journal, 56, 10–18.
   Google Scholar
• Bevilacqua M.C., Banhara M.R., De Costa E.A., Vignoly A.B. Alvarenga K.F. 2008. The Brazilian Portuguese Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol, 47, 364–365.
   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
• Bradlow A.R. Alexander J.A. 2007. Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2339–2349.
   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. Plomp R. 1988. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 1508–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. . 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron S. Dillon H. 2007a. Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear, 28, 196–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron S. Dillon H. 2007b. The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): Test-retest reliability study. Int J Audiol, 46, 145–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstens W.A.M. 2003. Norme vir Afrikaans: Enkele riglyne by die gebruik van Afrikaans (4th ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik Uitgewers.
   Google Scholar
• Cekic S. Sennaroglu G. 2008. The Turkish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 366–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T., Dillon H. Byrne D. 1998. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1128–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandell C.C. 1991. Individual differences in speech recognition ability: Implications for hearing aid selection. Ear Hear, 12, Suppl., 100S–108S.
   Google Scholar
• de Otero C.B., Brik G., Flores L., Ortiz S. Abdala C. 2008. The Latin American Spanish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 362–363.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Schryver G. Prinsloo D.J. 2004. Spellcheckers for the South African languages, Part 1: The status quo and options for improvement. S Afr J Afr Lang, 24, 57–82.
   Google Scholar
• Dirks D.D., Takayanagi S. Moshfegh A. 2001. Effects of lexical factors on word recognition among normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 233–244.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dreschler W.A. Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1261–1270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. Westermann S. 2001. ICRA Noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology, 40, 148–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. Ahlstrom J.B. 2002. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2897–2907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy A.J. Plomp R. 1980. Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbyacusis. J Acoust Soc Am, 68, 537–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. Plomp R. 1983. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 652–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. Plomp R. 1986. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 465–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher H. Galt R.H. 1950. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 89–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French N.R. Steinberg J.C. 1947. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 19, 90–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Robinson K. 1997. Speech tests as measure of auditory processing. M. Martin, Speech Audiometry (2nd ed.). London: Whurr Publishers Ltd, 74–88.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman D. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman D. 1984. Clinical measurements of speech reception thresholds in noise. Scand Audiol, 13, 57–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B. Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargus S.E. Gordon-Salant S. 1995. Accuracy of speech intelligibility index predictions for noise-masked young listeners with normal hearing and for elderly listeners with hearing impairment. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 234–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirsh I.J. 1948. The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J Acoust Soc Am, 20, 536–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood J.D. Poole J.P. 1971. Speech audiometry in conductive and sensorineural hearing loss. Sound, 5, 30–38.
   Google Scholar
• Hornsby B.W.Y. 2004. The speech intelligibility index: What is it and what's it good for? Hear J, 57, 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Houtgast T. Festen J.M. 2008. On the auditory and cognitive functions that may explain an individual's elevation of the speech reception threshold in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 287–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huarte A. 2008. The Castilian Spanish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 369–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. 2002. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1112–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Dirks D.D., Bell T.S., Ahlstbom C. Kincaid G.E. 1986. Application of the articulation index and the speech transmission index to the recognition of speech by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 447–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hutcherson R.W., Dirks D.D. Morgan D.E. 1979. Evaluation of the speech perception in noise (SPIN) test. Otolarnygol Head Neck Surg, 87, 239–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N. Elliott L.L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Acoust Soc Am, 61, 1337–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamm C.A., Dirks D.D. Bell T.S. 1985. Speech recognition and the articulation index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 281–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. 2002. New thinking on hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Semin Hear, 23, 57–75.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. Niquette P.A. 2000. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient's SNR loss? The Hearing Journal, 53, 46–53.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B. Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2412–2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konkle D.F. Rintelmann W.F. 1983. Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kryter K.D. 1962. Validation of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am, 34, 1698–1702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1970. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1978. Adaptive testing in audiology. Scand Audiol Suppl, 6, 241–291.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Licklider J.C.R. 1948. The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 20, 150–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lolov S.R., Raynov A.M., Boteva I.B. Edrev G.E. 2008. The Bulgarian hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 371–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzi C., Husson M., Ardoint M. Debruille X. 2006. Speech masking release in listeners with flat hearing loss: Effects of masker fluctuation rate on identification scores and phonetic feature reception. Int J Audiol, 45, 487–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce P.A. Pisoni D.B. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear, 19, 1–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucks Mendel L. Danhauer J.L. 1997. Audiologic Evaluation and Management and Speech Perception Assessment. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lutman M.E. 1997. Speech tests in quiet and noise as a measure of auditory processing. M. Martin ,Speech Audiometry (2nd ed.). London: Whurr Publishers Ltd, 63–73.
   Google Scholar
• Lutman M.E. Clark J. 1986. Speech identification under simulated hearing aid frequency response characteristics in relation to sensitivity, frequency resolution, and temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 1030–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luts H., Boon E., Wable J. Wouters J. 2008. FIST: A French test for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 373–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo L.H., Florentine M. Buus S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 40, 686–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLauchlin R.M. 1980. Speech Protocols for Assessment of Persons With Limited Language Abilities. R.R. Rupp K.G. Stockdell Sr., Speech Protocols in Audiology. New York: Grune & Stratton Inc, 253–286.
   Google Scholar
• Middelweerd M.J., Festen J.M. Plomp R. 1990. Difficulties with speech intelligibilities in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram. Audiology, 29, 1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller G.A. Licklider J.C.R. 1950. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 22, 167–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon S.K., Kim S.H., Mun H.A., Jung H.K., Lee J. . 2008. The Korean hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 375–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 1995. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2002. Response to ‘Articulation index predictions for hearing impaired listeners with and without cochlear dead regions’. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2549–2550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhrum M. Moen I. 2008. The Norwegian hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 377–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. 2007. Statistics about Hearing Disorders, Ear Infections, and Deafness. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/hearing.asp
   Google Scholar
• Needleman A.R. 1998. Quantification of context effects in speech perception: Influence of prosody. Clin Linguist Phon, 12, 305–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neijenhuis K.A.M., Stollman M.H.P., Snik A.F.M. Van den Broek P. 2001. Development of a central auditory test battery for adults. Audiol, 40, 69–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson M.J., 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
• Noordhoek I.M., Houtgast T. Festen J.M. 2001. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz region. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1197–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2002. Hearing Conservation. OSHA 3074 2002 (Revised). Available on www.osha.gov/Publications
   Google Scholar
• Ostergard C.A. 1983. Factors influencing validity and reliability of speech audiometry. Semin Hear, 4, 221–240.
   Google Scholar
• Owens E. 1983. Speech Recognition and Aural Rehabilitation. D.F. Konkle W.F. Rintelmann ,Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press, 353–374.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1978. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 533–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Duquesnoy A.J. 1982. A model for the speech-reception threshold in noise without and with a hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 11, 95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Mimpen A.M. 1979a. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. Mimpen A.M. 1979b. 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
• Quar T.K., Mukari S.Z.M.S., Wahab N.A.A., Razak R.A., Omar M. . 2008. The Malay hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 379–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roush J. 2001. Screening for hearing loss and otitis media in children. San Diego: Singular-Thomson Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Rupp R.R. Stockdell K.G., Sr. 1980. The Roles of Speech Protocols in Audiology. R.R. Rupp K.G. Stockdell, Sr, Speech Protocols in Audiology. New York: Grune & Stratton Inc, 5–39.
   Google Scholar
• Scott T., Green W.B. Stuart A. 2001. Interactive effects of low-pass filtering and masking noise on word recognition. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 437–444.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiroma M., Iwaki T., Kubo T. Soli S. 2008. The Japanese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 381–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman S.R. Hirsh I.J. 1955. Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 64, 1234–1244.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soli S.D. 2008. Some thoughts on communication handicap and hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 47, 285–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soli S.D. Wong L.L.N. 2008. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 356–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speaks C. Jerger J. 1965. Method for measurement of speech identification. J Speech Hear Res, 8, 185–194.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens S.D.G. 1976. The input for a damaged cochlea: A brief review. Brit J Audiol, 10, 97–101.
   Google Scholar
• Stockley K.B. Green W.B. 2000. Interlist equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in quiet and noise with adult hearing-impaired individuals. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 91–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart A., Phillips D.P. Green W.B. 1995. Word recognition performance in continuous and interrupted broad-band noise by normal-hearing and simulated hearing-impaired listeners. Am J Otol, 16, 658–663.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thibodeau L.M. 1991. Exploration of factors beyond audibility that may influence speech recognition. Ear Hear, 12, 109S–115S.
   Google Scholar
• Vaillancourt V., Laroche C., Mayer C., Basque C., Nali M. . 2005. Adaptation of the HINT (hearing in noise test) for adult Canadian Francophone populations. Int J Audiol, 44, 358–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij J.C.G.M. Plomp R. 1990. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 2611–2624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Schijndel N.H., Houtgast T. Festen J.M. 2001. Effects of degradation of intensity, time, or frequency content on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 529–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wieringen A. Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and The Netherlands. Int J Audiol, 47, 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J.M. Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1906–1916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermiglio A.J. 2008. The American English hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 386–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Daalder L, Festen J.M. Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. 2004. Factors Influencing Sentence Intelligibility in Noise. DSc Thesis. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag. Retrieved January 24, 2008 from http://docserver.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/publikationen/dissertation/2003/wagfac03/pdf/wagfac03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss D. Dempsey J.J. 2008. Performance of bilingual speakers on the English and Spanish versions of the hearing in noise test (HINT). J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 5–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Carnell C.S. Cleghorn A.L. 2007a. The words-in-noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 522–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H. McArdle R. 2005. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev, 42 (Suppl. 2), 79–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R.A. Smith S.L. 2007b. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 844–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H. Strouse A. 1999. Psychometrically equivalent spondaic words spoken by a female speaker. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 1336–1346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Zizz C.A., Shanks J.E. Causey G.D. 1990. Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University auditory test no. 6 by a female speaker. J Speech Hear Disord, 55, 771–778.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong L.L.N. 2008. The Cantonese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 388–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong L.L.N., Liu S. Han N. 2008. The Mainland Mandarin hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 393–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong L.L.N Soli S.D. 2005. Development of the Cantonese Hearing In Noise Test. Ear Hear, 26, 276–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong L.L.N., Soli S.D., Liu S., Han N. Huang M. 2007. Development of the Mandarin hearing in noise test (MHINT). Ear Hear, 28, Suppl., 70S–74S.
   Google Scholar