Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: Psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression

References

• Advíncula K.P., Menezes D.C., Pacífico F.A. & Griz S.M.S. 2013. Effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech. Audiol Com Res, 18, 238–244.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein J.G. & Brungart D.S. 2011. Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 473–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein J.G. & Grant K.W. 2009. Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3358–3372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein J.G., Summers V., Iyer N. & Brungart D.S. 2012. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 2676–2689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevilacqua M.C., Banhara M.R., Da 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
• Buss E., Calandruccio L. & Hall J.W. 2014. Masked sentence recognition assessed at ascending target-to-masker ratios: Modest effects of repeating stimuli. Ear Hear, ePub ahead of print.
   Google Scholar
• Buss E., Whittle L.N., Grose J.H. & Hall J.W. 3rd. 2009. Masking release for words in amplitude-modulated noise as a function of modulation rate and task. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 269–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calandruccio L., Buss E. & Hall J.W. 3rd 2014. Effects of linguistic experience on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral masker modulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 135, 1335–1343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen C. & Dau T. 2012. Relationship between masking release in fluctuating maskers and speech reception thresholds in stationary noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 1655–1666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desloge J.G., Reed C.M., Braida L.D., Perez Z.D. & Delhorne L.A. 2010. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: Effects of continuous and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 342–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirks D.D. & Bower D.R. 1971. Influence of pulsed masking on spondee words. J Acoust Soc Am, 50, 1204–1207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2003. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2084–2094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. 1987. Speech-reception threshold in fluctuating background sound and its possible relation to temporal auditory resolution. In: M.E.H. Schouten (ed.) The Psychophysics of Speech Perception. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & 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, 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2011. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. Int J Audiol, 50, 2–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullgrabe C., Berthommier F. & Lorenzi C. 2006. Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res, 211, 74–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295–2311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnansia D., Jourdes V. & Lorenzi C. 2008. Effect of masker modulation depth on speech masking release. Hear Res, 239, 60–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S. & Fitzgibbons P.J. 2001. Sources of age-related recognition difficulty for time-compressed speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 44, 709–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose J.H., Mamo S.K. & Hall J.W. 3rd. 2009. Age effects in temporal envelope processing: Speech unmasking and auditory steady state responses. Ear Hear, 30, 568–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson H.A. & Arlinger S.D. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosoi H., Tsuta Y., Nishida T., Murata K., Ohta F. et al. 1999. Variable-speech-rate audiometry for hearing-aid evaluation. Auris Nasus Larynx, 26, 17–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenstad L.M. & Souza P.E. 2007. Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: Combined effects on recognition for older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 1123–1138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin S.H. & Nelson P.B. 2006. Speech perception in gated noise: The effects of temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 3097–3108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek M.R., Hanna T.E. & Marshall L. 1992. Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Percept Psychophys, 51, 247–256.
   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
• 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
• Nakamura K. & Gordon-Salant S. 2011. Speech perception in quiet and noise using the hearing in noise test and the Japanese hearing in noise test by Japanese listeners. Ear Hear, 32, 121–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxenham A.J. & Simonson A.M. 2009. Masking release for low- and high-pass-filtered speech in the presence of noise and single-talker interference. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 457–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters R.W., Moore B.C. & 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, 577–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C. & Festen J.M. 2013. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: II. Fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 3004–3015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soli S.D. & Wong L.L. 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
• Stuart A. & Phillips D.P. 1996. Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusic listeners. Ear Hear, 17, 478–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R. & Roberts H. 2008. A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 496–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar