Literature DB >> 25096112

Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments.

Douglas S Brungart1, Benjamin M Sheffield2, Lina R Kubli2.   

Abstract

In the real world, spoken communication occurs in complex environments that involve audiovisual speech cues, spatially separated sound sources, reverberant listening spaces, and other complicating factors that influence speech understanding. However, most clinical tools for assessing speech perception are based on simplified listening environments that do not reflect the complexities of real-world listening. In this study, speech materials from the QuickSIN speech-in-noise test by Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, and Banerjee [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 2395-2405 (2004)] were modified to simulate eight listening conditions spanning the range of auditory environments listeners encounter in everyday life. The standard QuickSIN test method was used to estimate 50% speech reception thresholds (SRT50) in each condition. A method of adjustment procedure was also used to obtain subjective estimates of the lowest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) where the listeners were able to understand 100% of the speech (SRT100) and the highest SNR where they could detect the speech but could not understand any of the words (SRT0). The results show that the modified materials maintained most of the efficiency of the QuickSIN test procedure while capturing performance differences across listening conditions comparable to those reported in previous studies that have examined the effects of audiovisual cues, binaural cues, room reverberation, and time compression on the intelligibility of speech.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25096112     DOI: 10.1121/1.4887440

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


  8 in total

1.  Intelligibility and Clarity of Reverberant Speech: Effects of Wide Dynamic Range Compression Release Time and Working Memory.

Authors:  Paul N Reinhart; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Development of the Everyday Conversational Sentences in Noise test.

Authors:  Kelly M Miles; Gitte Keidser; Katrina Freeston; Timothy Beechey; Virginia Best; Jörg M Buchholz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Hidden Hearing Loss? No Effect of Common Recreational Noise Exposure on Cochlear Nerve Response Amplitude in Humans.

Authors:  Sarah K Grinn; Kathryn B Wiseman; Jason A Baker; Colleen G Le Prell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  The effects of repeated low-level blast exposure on hearing in marines.

Authors:  Lina R Kubli; Robin L Pinto; Holly L Burrows; Philip D Littlefield; Douglas S Brungart
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2017 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.867

5.  Objective and Subjective Auditory Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury and Blast Exposure in Service Members and Veterans.

Authors:  Stefanie E Kuchinsky; Megan M Eitel; Rael T Lange; Louis M French; Tracey A Brickell; Sara M Lippa; Douglas S Brungart
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 4.003

6.  Complex Acoustic Environments: Review, Framework, and Subjective Model.

Authors:  Adam Weisser; Jörg M Buchholz; Gitte Keidser
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40-69 years of age.

Authors:  David R Moore; Mark Edmondson-Jones; Piers Dawes; Heather Fortnum; Abby McCormack; Robert H Pierzycki; Kevin J Munro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Auditory cognition and perception of action video game players.

Authors:  Hannah J Stewart; Jasmin L Martinez; Audrey Perdew; C Shawn Green; David R Moore
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.