Literature DB >> 10738820

Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold.

N J Versfeld1, L Daalder, J M Festen, T Houtgast.   

Abstract

A method is described to select sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold (SRT). The first part of the paper addresses the creation of the sentence materials, the recording procedure, and a listening experiment to evaluate the new speech materials. The result is a set of 1272 sentences, where every sentence has been uttered by two male and two female speakers. In the second part of the paper, a method is described to select subsets with properties that are desired for an efficient measurement of the SRT. For two speakers, this method has been applied to obtain two subsets for measurement of the SRT in stationary noise with the long-term average spectrum of speech. Lastly, a listening experiment has been conducted where the two subsets (each comprising 39 lists of 13 sentences each) are directly compared to the existing sets of Plomp and Mimpen [Audiology 18, 43-52 (1979)] and Smoorenburg [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 421-437 (1992)]. One of the outcomes is that the newly developed sets can be considered as equivalent to these existing sets.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10738820     DOI: 10.1121/1.428451

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  46 in total

1.  Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments.

Authors:  Monique Boymans; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-12-04

2.  A method to remove differences in frequency response between commercial hearing aids to allow direct comparison of the sound quality of hearing-aid features.

Authors:  Rolph Houben; Inge Brons; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-11-07

Review 3.  Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Mick Metselaar; Bert Maat; Hans Verschuure; Wouter A Dreschler; Louw Feenstra
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  [Comparison of different speech intelligibility tests in German language (Freiburg speech test vs. Göttingen sentence test and monosyllabic rhyme test)].

Authors:  H Sukowski; T Brand; K C Wagener; B Kollmeier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  The Effect of Binaural Beamforming Technology on Speech Intelligibility in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Jantien L Vroegop; Nienke C Homans; André Goedegebure; J Gertjan Dingemanse; Teun van Immerzeel; Marc P van der Schroeff
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Age effects on perceptual organization of speech: Contributions of glimpsing, phonemic restoration, and speech segregation.

Authors:  William J Bologna; Kenneth I Vaden; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Susceptibility to interference by music and speech maskers in middle-aged adults.

Authors:  Deniz Başkent; Suzanne van Engelshoven; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Altered cortical activity in prelingually deafened cochlear implant users following long periods of auditory deprivation.

Authors:  Marc J W Lammers; Huib Versnel; Gijsbert A van Zanten; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-10-15

9.  Age effects on perceptual restoration of degraded interrupted sentences.

Authors:  Brittany N Jaekel; Rochelle S Newman; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Recognition of temporally interrupted and spectrally degraded sentences with additional unprocessed low-frequency speech.

Authors:  Deniz Başkent; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.