An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment

References

• Agus T.R., Akeroyd M.A., Gatehouse S. & Warden D. 2009. Informational masking in young and elderly listeners for speech masked by simultaneous speech and noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 1926–1940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for calculation of the speech transmission index. A revision of ANSI S3.5-1969. American National Standard, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Getta J.P. & Anderson C.V. 1993. Longitudinal study of hearing-aid effectiveness II. Subjective measures. J Sp Hear Res, 36, 820–831.
   PubMedGoogle 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, 2258–3372.
   Google Scholar
• Best V., Marrone N., Mason C.R. & Kidd G., Jr. 2012. The influence of non-spatial factors on measures of spatial release from masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 13, 3103–3110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bork I. 2005. Report on the 3rd round robin on room acoustical computer simulation - Part II: Calculations. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 91, 753–763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1101–1109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart D.S., Simpson B.D., Ericson M.A. & Scott K.R. 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carhart R., Tillman T.W. & Greetis E.S. 1969. Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 45, 694–703.
   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
• Compton-Conley C.L., Neuman A.C., Killion M. & Levitt H. 2004. Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: Real-world versus simulation. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 440–445.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cord M., Baskent D., Kalluri S. & Moore B.C.J. 2007. Disparity between clinical assessment and real-world performance of hearing aids. Hear Rev, 14, 22–26.
   Google Scholar
• Cord M.T., Surr R.K., Walden B.E. & Dyrlund O. 2004. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 353–364.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Culling J.F., Hodder K.I. & Toh C.Y. 2003. Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 2871–2876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel J., Nicol R. & Moreau S. 2003. Further investigations of high order ambisonics and wavefield synthesis for holophonic sound imaging AES 114th Convention. Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Favrot S. & Buchholz J.M. 2010. LoRA: A loudspeaker-based room auralization system. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 96, 364–376.
   Web of Science ®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
• Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L.J., 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
• George E.L.J., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2008. The combined effects of reverberation and nonstationary noise on sentence intelligibility J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 1269–1277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R.H. & Revit L.J. 2010. Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: Effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 441–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert J., Tamati T. & Pisoni D. 2013. Development, reliability and validity of PRESTO: A new high-variablity sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 26–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris R.W. & Reitz M.L. 1985. Effects of room reverberation and noise on speech discrimination by the elderly. Audiology, 24, 319–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris R.W. & Swenson D.W. 1990. Effects of reverberation and noise on speech recognition by adults with various amounts of sensorineural hearing impairment. Audiology, 29, 314–321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Helfer K.S. & Freyman R.L. 2008. Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear, 29, 87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IEC 60268-16 Sound system equipment: Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index. Edition 4.0 2011-06, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 3382 Acoustics: Measurement of the reverberation time of rooms with reference to other acoustical parameters. Second Edition, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Jerger J. 2009. Ecologically valid measures of hearing-aid performance. Starkey Audiology Series, 1, 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Ching T., Dillon H., Agung K., Brew C. et al. 2002. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) CDs of speech and noise for hearing-aid evaluation: Normative data and potential applications. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 24, 16–35.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H., Convery E. & Mejia J. 2013a. Factors influencing inter-individual variation in perceptual directional microphone benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 955–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H., Mejia J. & Nguyen C.V. 2013b. An algorithm that administers adaptive speech-in-noise testing to a specified reliability at selectable points on the psychometric function. Int J Audiol, 52, 795–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M., Schulein R., Christensen L., Fabry D., Revit L. et al. 1998. Real-world performance of an ITE directional microphone. Hearing Journal, 51, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Lavandier M. & Culling J.F. 2007. Speech segregation in rooms: Effects of reverberation on both target and interferer. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1713–1723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavandier M. & Culling J.F. 2008. Speech segregation in rooms: Monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 2237–2248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel L.L. 2007. Objective and subjective hearing-aid assessment outcomes. Am J Audiol, 16, 118–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabelek A.K. 1988. Identification of vowels in quiet, noise, and reverberation: Relationships with age and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 476–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreinos C. & Buchholz J.M. 2014. Validation of realistic acoustical environments for listening tests using directional hearing aids International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC 2014). Antibes, France.
   Google Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L. & Fidell S. 1976. Speech levels in various noise environments. Environmental Health Effects Research Series, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,EPA-600/1-77-025.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Sp Hear Res, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Revit L.J., Schulein R.B. & Julstrom S. 2002. Toward accurate assessment of real-world hearing aid benefit. Hearing Review, 9, 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Pool R.E. & Dreschler W.A. 2014. Characterizing the speech reception threshold in hearing-impaired listeners in relation to masker type and masker level. J Acoust Soc Am, 135, 1491–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rindel J.H. 2000. The use of computer modeling in room acoustics. J Vibroengineering, 3, 41–72.
   Google Scholar
• Smeds K., Wolters F. & Rung M. 2012. Realistic signal-to-noise ratios Proceedings of the International Hearing Aid Research Conference. Lake Tahoe, pp. 93–94.
   Google Scholar
• Strasburger H. 2001. Converting between measures of slope of the psychometric function. Percept Psychophys, 63, 1348–1355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tye-Murray N., Sommers M., Spehar B., Myerson J., Hale S. et al. 2008. Auditory-visual discourse comprehension by older and young adults in favorable and unfavorable conditions. Int J Audiol, 47, S31–S37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walden B.E., Surr R.K., Cord M.T., Edwards B. & Olson L. 2000. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 540–560.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westermann A., Buchholz J.M. & Dau T. 2013. Binaural de-reverberation based on interaural coherence. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 2767–2777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wichmann F.A. & Hill N.J. 2001. The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling and goodness-of-fit. Percept Psychophys, 63, 1293–1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R.A. & Smith S.L. 2007. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 50, 844–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wingfield A., McCoy S.L., Peele J.A., Tun P.A. & Cox L.C. 2006. Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 487–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods W.S., Kalluri S., Pentony S. & Nooraei N. 2013. Predicting the effect of hearing loss and audibility on amplified speech reception in a multi-talker listening scenario. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 4268–4278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu T.-H. 2010. Effect of age on directional microphone hearing-aid benefit and preference. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 78–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahorik P. 2002. Assessing auditory distance perception using virtual acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1832–1846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar