Literature DB >> 9407667

Estimating articulation scores.

C M Rankovic1, R M Levy.   

Abstract

The ability of listeners to estimate articulation scores for lists of nonsense syllables was evaluated. Normal-hearing subjects were presented with lists of from 50 to 60 nonsense syllables that were degraded with various amounts of noise or filtering and were instructed to estimate consonant-correct scores for each condition. To provide a reference for estimating, subjects were shown the accurate orthographic representation of the syllable on a computer monitor to compare with the auditory presentation. The printed version was displayed either simultaneously with the auditory presentation or 500 ms after the offset of the syllable. Estimates were collected on two occasions to examine test-retest reliability, and actual percent-correct scores were obtained to check the accuracy of the estimates. Most subjects overestimated actual scores when the printed representation was provided simultaneously, but estimates were strikingly similar to actual scores when the printed representation was delayed. The delay appeared to prevent the printed representation from favorably biasing the reception of the syllable. The average of two or three estimates gave highly repeatable results for both visual displays. Crossover frequencies derived from the filtered-speech conditions were within the range reported in the literature. This supports the conclusion that subjects based their estimates on the recognition of speech sounds rather than other percepts associated with the speech-in-noise conditions such as loudness of the noise. The estimation procedure permits the collection of articulation scores in much less time than required by traditional test procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9407667     DOI: 10.1121/1.420138

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


  5 in total

1.  Temporal effects in priming of masked and degraded speech.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Charlotte Morse-Fortier; Amanda M Griffin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Priming of lowpass-filtered speech affects response bias, not sensitivity, in a bandwidth discrimination task.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Amanda M Griffin; Neil A Macmillan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The Effect of Aging and Priming on Same/Different Judgments Between Text and Partially Masked Speech.

Authors:  Richard L Freyman; Jenna Terpening; Angela C Costanzi; Karen S Helfer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Effect of priming on energetic and informational masking in a same-different task.

Authors:  J Ackland Jones; Richard L Freyman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  The Just-Meaningful Difference in Speech-to-Noise Ratio.

Authors:  David McShefferty; William M Whitmer; Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 3.293

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.