Literature DB >> 25329373

Masked sentence recognition assessed at ascending target-to-masker ratios: modest effects of repeating stimuli.

Emily Buss1, Lauren Calandruccio, Joseph W Hall.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Masked sentence recognition is typically evaluated by presenting a novel stimulus on each trial. As a consequence, experiments calling for replicate estimates in multiple conditions require large corpora of stimuli. The present study evaluated the consequences of repeating sentence-plus-masker pairs at ascending target-to-masker ratios (TMRs). The hypothesis was that performance on each trial would be consistent with the cues available to the listener at the associated TMR, resulting in similar estimates of threshold and slope for procedures using novel versus repeated sentences within an ascending-TMR block of trials.
DESIGN: A group of 37 normal-hearing young adults participated. Each listener was tested in the presence of one of three maskers: a multitalker babble, a speech-shaped noise, or an amplitude-modulated speech-shaped noise. There were two data collection procedures, both proceeding in blocks of trials with ascending TMRs. The novel-stimulus procedure used five lists of AzBio sentences, one presented at each of five TMRs, with a novel sentence and masker sample on each trial. The repeated-stimulus procedure used a single list of AzBio sentences, with each sentence presented at multiple TMRs, progressing from low to high; each sentence was paired with a single masker sample, such that only the TMR changed within blocks of repeated stimuli. Listeners completed one run with the novel-stimulus procedure and five runs with the repeated-stimulus procedure. The resulting values of percent correct at each TMR were fitted with a logit function to estimate threshold and psychometric function slope.
RESULTS: The novel- and repeated-stimulus procedures resulted in generally similar data patterns. After controlling for effects related to the order in which listeners completed the six data collection runs, mean thresholds were slightly higher (<0.5 dB) for the repeated-stimulus procedure than the novel-stimulus procedure in all three maskers. Function slopes for the multitalker babble and amplitude-modulated noise maskers were slightly shallower using the repeated-stimulus than the novel-stimulus procedure, but slopes were comparable for the speech-shaped noise. The quality of psychometric function fits was significantly better for the repeated-stimulus than the novel-stimulus procedure, even when comparing a single run of the repeated-stimulus procedure (using one list) to a run of the novel-stimulus procedure (using five lists).
CONCLUSIONS: Repeating sentences at ascending TMRs is an efficient method for estimating thresholds and psychometric function slopes, both in terms of the number of sentences and the number of trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25329373      PMCID: PMC4354773          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  40 in total

1.  Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold.

Authors:  L L Kontsevich; C W Tyler
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT ON THE VISUAL DURATION THRESHOLD FOR WORDS.

Authors:  J MORTON
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  1964-05

3.  Indicators of perception. I. Subliminal perception, subception, unconscious perception: an analysis in terms of psychophysical indicator methodology.

Authors:  I GOLDIAMOND
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1958-11       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Psychophysical methods in the study of word recognition.

Authors:  G ADIS-CASTRO; L POSTMAN
Journal:  Science       Date:  1957-02-01       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise.

Authors:  Martin Cooke
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise.

Authors:  Koenraad S Rhebergen; Niek J Versfeld; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Karen S Helfer; Uma Balakrishnan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.

Authors:  G A MILLER; G A HEISE; W LICHTEN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1951-05

9.  Point-light facial displays enhance comprehension of speech in noise.

Authors:  L D Rosenblum; J A Johnson; H M Saldaña
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1996-12

10.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.

Authors:  D N Kalikow; K N Stevens; L L Elliott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  5 in total

1.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression.

Authors:  John H Grose; Silvana Griz; Fernando A Pacífico; Karina P Advíncula; Denise C Menezes
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Brendan P O'Connell; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 1.636

4.  Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Does Sentence-Level Coarticulation Affect Speech Recognition in Noise or a Speech Masker?

Authors:  Brandi Jett; Emily Buss; Virginia Best; Jacob Oleson; Lauren Calandruccio
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 2.297

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.