M Exter1, A Winkler2, I Holube1. 1. Institut für Hörtechnik und Audiologie, Jade Hochschule und Exzellenzcluster "Hearing4All", Ofener Str. 16/19, 26121, Oldenburg, Deutschland. 2. Institut für Hörtechnik und Audiologie, Jade Hochschule und Exzellenzcluster "Hearing4All", Ofener Str. 16/19, 26121, Oldenburg, Deutschland. Alexandra.Winkler@jade-hs.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ISO 8253-3 [4] describes the requirements for speech tests with respect to their phonemic balance. The fulfillment of these requirements by the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test were examined. METHODS: The Freiburg monosyllables were phonologically transcribed and analyzed with respect to their structural types, vowels and consonants, as well as phonological classes, and compared to reference values. RESULTS: The phonemic distribution of the Freiburg monosyllables differs slightly from the reference values for the German language. The differences are presumably related to the restriction to monosyllabic substantives. Most test lists (except for 12) contain similar proportions of different phonem classes for vowel and consonants according to Hahlbrock and ISO 8253-3 [4]. CONCLUSION: The deviations of test lists 5, 11, and 15 in a study for perceptual equivalence cannot be explained by phonemic imbalance in comparison to other test lists. Only the lower recognition rates for test list 12 might be explained by its deviant phonemic distribution.
BACKGROUND: ISO 8253-3 [4] describes the requirements for speech tests with respect to their phonemic balance. The fulfillment of these requirements by the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test were examined. METHODS: The Freiburg monosyllables were phonologically transcribed and analyzed with respect to their structural types, vowels and consonants, as well as phonological classes, and compared to reference values. RESULTS: The phonemic distribution of the Freiburg monosyllables differs slightly from the reference values for the German language. The differences are presumably related to the restriction to monosyllabic substantives. Most test lists (except for 12) contain similar proportions of different phonem classes for vowel and consonants according to Hahlbrock and ISO 8253-3 [4]. CONCLUSION: The deviations of test lists 5, 11, and 15 in a study for perceptual equivalence cannot be explained by phonemic imbalance in comparison to other test lists. Only the lower recognition rates for test list 12 might be explained by its deviant phonemic distribution.