Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests

References

• ANSI-3.5 1997, 1997. ANSI S3.5, Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. Acoustical Society of America.
   Google Scholar
• Bacon S., Opie J., Montoya D. 1998. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41(3), 549–563.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein J., Grant K. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125(5), 3358–72.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P., Weenink D. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.
   Google Scholar
• Bregman A. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, Mass., USA, MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brungart D. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109(3), 1101–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D., Chang P., Simpson B., Wang D. 2009. Multitalker speech perception with ideal time-frequency segregation: Effects of voice characteristics and number of talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 125(6), 4006–22.
   Google Scholar
• Brungart D., Simpson B., Ericson M., Scott K. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 110(5 pt. 1), 2527–38.
   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(4), 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullington H., Zeng F. 2008. Speech recognition with varying numbers and types of competing talkers by normal-hearing, cochlear-implant, and implant simulation subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 123(1), 450–61.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C., Westermann S. 2001. Icra noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology, 40(3), 148–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drullman R., Bronkhorst A. 2004. Speech perception and talker segregation: Effects of level, pitch, and tactile support with multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(5), 3090–8.
   Google Scholar
• Durlach N., Mason C. Jr., Arbogast T., Colburn H., Shinn-Cunningham B. 2003. Note on informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 113(6), 2984–7.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L., Dirks D. 1995. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 38(1), 222.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen J., Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88(4), 1725–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francart T., van Wieringen A., Wouters J. 2008. APEX 3: A multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods, 172(2), 283–293.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson H., Arlinger S. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(1), 518–29.
   Google Scholar
• Holube I. 2007. Short description of the international speech test signal (ists). Technical report, Hoertech.
   Google Scholar
• Howard-Jones P., Rosen S. 1993. Uncomodulated glimpsing in ‘checkerboard’ noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 93(5), 2915–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPA, 1999, Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon B., Turner C. 2001. Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: Masking release or modulation interference? J Acoust Soc Am, 110(2), 1130–40.
   Google Scholar
• Peters R., Moore B., Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103(1), 577–87.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R., Mimpen A. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18(1), 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rhebergen K., Versfeld N., Dreschler W. 2005. Release from informational masking by time reversal of native and non-native interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(3 pt. 1), 1274–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn-Cunningham B. 2008. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci, 12(5), 182–6.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson S., Cooke M. 2005. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am, 118(5), 2775–8.
   Google Scholar
• Takahashi G., Bacon S. 1992. Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res, 35(6), 1410–1421.
   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 Audol, 47(6), 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N., Daalder L., Festen J., Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107(3), 1671–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagener K., 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(3), 144–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T., Kollmeier B. 2006. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol, 45(1), 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar