Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing

References

• Adams E.M., Gordon-Hickey S., Morlas H. & Moore R. 2012. Effect of rate alteration on speech perception in noise in older adults with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Am J Audiol, 21, 22–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2013. Maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms. (ANSI S3.1-1999). New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Bench J., Kowal A. & Bamford J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108–112. J Acoust Soc Am, 123(1), 414–427.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bidelman G.M. & Dexter L. 2015. Bilinguals at the ‘cocktail party’ Dissociable neural activity in auditory-linguistic brain regions reveals neurobiological basis for nonnative listeners’ speech-in-noise recognition deficits. Brain & Lang, 143, 32–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervera T.C., Soler M.J., Dasi C. & Ruiz J.C. 2009. Speech recognition and working memory capacity in young-elderly listeners: Effects of hearing sensitivity. Can J Exper Psych, 63(3), 216–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke M., Lecumberri M.L.G. & Barker J. 2008. The foreign language cocktail party problem: Energetic and informational masking effects in non-native speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 123 (1), 414–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crandell C.C. & Smaldino J.J. 1996. Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language. Am J Audiol, 5(3), 47–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dirks D.D., Morgan D.E. & Dubno J.R. 1982. A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. J Speech Hear Disord, 47,114–123.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Etymotic Research. 2001. The quick speech-in-noise test [compact disc], version 1.3. Elk Grove Village, USA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Etymotic Research. 2005. The Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test [compact disc], version 1.03. Elk Grove Village, USA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Greene L. & Mendel L.L. 2009. English as a second language and its effect on speech perception in noise. Unpublished 3rd year AuD research project. School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Memphis, Memphis, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 1969. IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 227–246.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. 2002. New thinking on hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Seminars in Hearing, 23(1), 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? Hear J, 53(3), 46–53.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C., Niquette P.A., Gudmundsen G.I., Revit L.J. & Banerjee S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krogstad J.M. 2014. With fewer new arrivals, Census lowers Hispanic population projections. Pew Research Center Survey Report, December, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kujawa S.G. & Liberman M.C. 2009. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after ‘temporary’ noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29, 14077–14085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langdon H. 2008. Assessment and Intervention for Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Lecumberri M.L.G. & Cooke M. 2006. Effect of masker type on native and non-native consonant perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 199(4), 2445–2454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1978. Adaptive testing in audiology. Scand Audiol Suppl. 6(6), 241–291.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation hearing aid use. lnt J Audiol, 42, S49–S58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magiste E. 1985. Development of intra and interlingual interference in bilinguals. J Psych Res, 14, 137–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo L.H., Florentine M. & Buss S. 1997. Age of second-language acquisition and perception of speech in noise. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 40, 686–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendel L.L., Roberts R.A. Walton J.H. 2003. Speech Perception Benefits from Sound Field FM Amplification. Am J Audiol, 12, 114–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2007. Speech perception. In: Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 225–229.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson P., Kohnert K., Sabur S. & Shaw D. 2005. Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: Double jeopardy? Lang Sp Hear Serv Schools, 36, 219–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J. 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
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A. & Daneman M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 593–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18(1), 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rogers C.L., Lister J.J. & Febo D.M. 2006. Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Applied Psycholing, 27, 465–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Lunner T., Behrens T., Thoren E.S. & Ronnberg J. 2012. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Acad Am Audiol, 23, 577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider B.A., Daneman M. & Murphy D.R. 2005. Speech comprehension difficulties in older adults: Cognitive slowing or age related changes in hearing. Psychol Aging, 20, 261–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L. & Sanchez D. 2010. Spanish/English bilingual listeners on clinical word recognition tests: What to expect and how to predict. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 53, 1096–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L. 2011. How ‘proficient’ is proficient? Subjective proficiency as a predictor of bilingual listeners recognition of English words. Am J Audiol, 20, 19–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin H.B. & Kominski R.A. 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Language use in the United States: 2007, American community survey reports. U.S. Census Bureau.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor B.J. 2003. Speech-in-noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. Hear J, 56(1), 40–46.
   Google Scholar
• Tillman T.W. & Carhart R. 1966. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words (Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report 66-55). Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Transparent Language. 2013. English Proficiency Test. Retrieved from http://www.transparent.com/learn-english/proficiency-test.html.
   Google Scholar
• Van Engen K.J 2010. Similarity and familiarity: Second language sentence recognition in first- and second-language multi-talker babble. Speech Comm, 52, 943–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Hapsburg D., Champlin C.A. & Shetty S.R. 2004. Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 88–98.
   PubMedGoogle 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. 2003. Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol, 14(9), 453–470.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H. & Burks C.A. 2005. Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol. J Rehab Res Dev, 42(6), 839–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R. & Smith S. 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
• Wilson R.H. 2011. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: Comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol, 22(7), 405–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar