Literature DB >> 15916115

Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters.

Kirsten Carola Wagener1, Thomas Brand.   

Abstract

Speech intelligibility measurements strongly depend on several procedural parameters. In order to obtain comparable results from different test procedures, these parameters must be investigated as to which should be standardized and which could be set freely. This study investigates the influence of noise level, noise type, and presentation mode on speech reception thresholds (SRTs), and intelligibility function slopes in noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. The noise presentation level had no significant influence on either SRTs or slope values, provided that the presentation level exceeded hearing threshold. Two stationary, speech-shaped noises produced identical results. Speech-simulating fluctuating noise yielded about 14 dB lower SRTs for normal-hearing subjects and about 10 dB lower SRTs for 20% of the heating-impaired subjects. Of the hearing-impaired subjects, 30% did not benefit from the modulations and showed similar SRTs as for stationary noise. Using continuous noise yielded lower SRTs compared to gated noise. However, the difference between the results in continuous and gated noise was not significant for the hearing-impaired subjects. A presentation level of 65 dB SPL (normal-hearing subjects) or 80 dB SPL (hearing-impaired subjects) and an interfering noise with a spectrum similar to the mean long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) is suggested for comparable adaptive measurement procedures. A fluctuating, speech-shaped noise is recommended to differentiate between subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15916115     DOI: 10.1080/14992020500057517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  28 in total

1.  A Series of Case Studies of Tinnitus Suppression With Mixed Background Stimuli in a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; A J Keiner; Kurt Walker; Aniruddha K Deshpande; Shelley Witt; Matthijs Killian; Helena Ji; Jim Patrick; Norbert Dillier; Pim van Dijk; Wai Kong Lai; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce Gantz
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.493

2.  [Speech audiometric assessment of informational masking. German version].

Authors:  S Rählmann; H Meister
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Speech audiometric assessment of informational masking.

Authors:  S Rählmann; H Meister
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 4.  [The Freiburg speech intelligibility test : A pillar of speech audiometry in German-speaking countries].

Authors:  S Hoth
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  [The Freiburg monosyllabic speech test in noise].

Authors:  A Winkler; I Holube; H Husstedt
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  [Indication for and verification of hearing aid benefit using modern methods of speech audiometry in German].

Authors:  B Kollmeier; T Lenarz; A Winkler; M A Zokoll; H Sukowski; T Brand; K C Wagener
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification.

Authors:  Helen E Cullington; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  [Characteristics, advantages, and limits of matrix tests].

Authors:  T Brand; K C Wagener
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Cochlear implantation for hearing rehabilitation in single-sided deafness after translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma surgery.

Authors:  Frederike Hassepass; Susan Arndt; Antje Aschendorff; Roland Laszig; Thomas Wesarg
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Impact of a moving noise masker on speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Tobias Weissgerber; Tobias Rader; Uwe Baumann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.