Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold
1.Boothroyd, A. , and Nittrouer, S. (1988). “Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 101–114.
2.Bosman, A. J. , and Smoorenburg, G. F. (1995). “Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment,” Audiology 34, 260–284.
3.Cox, D. R., and Snell, E. J. (1989). Analysis of Binary Data (Chapman & Hall, London).
4.Duquesnoy, A. J. (1983). “The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 1136–1144.
5.Festen, J. M. , and Plomp, R. (1990). “Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 1725–1736.
6.Gatehouse, S. (1992). “The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92, 1258–1268.
7.Kalikow, D. N. , Stevens, K. N. , and Elliott, L. L. (1977). “Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 61, 1337–1351.
8.Kerkhoff, J., and Rietveld, T. (1994). “Prosody in NIROS with FONPARS and ALFEIOS,” Proceedings Department of Language and Speech, University of Nijmegen, Vol. 18, pp. 106–119.
9.Kollmeier, B. (1990). “Meßmethodik, Modellierung und Verbesserung der Verständlichkeit von Sprache,” Habilitationsschrift, Universität Göttingen.
10.Kollmeier, B. , and Wesselkamp, M. (1997). “Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2412–2421.
11.Kramer, S. E. , Kapteyn, T. S. , and Festen, J. M. (1998). “The self-reported handicapping effect of hearing disabilities,” Audiology 37, 302–312.
12.Luce, P. A. , and Pisoni, D. B. (1998). “Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model,” Ear Hear. 19, 1–36.
13.Middelweerd, M. J. , Festen, J. M. , and Plomp, R. (1990). “Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram,” Audiology 29, 1–7.
14.Mullennix, J. W. , Pisoni, D. B. , and Martin, C. S. (1989). “Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 365–378.
15.Nilsson, M. , Soli, S. D. , and Sullivan, J. A. (1994). “Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quite and in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1085–1099.
16.Plomp, R. , and Mimpen, A. M. (1979). “Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences,” Audiology 18, 43–52.
17.Smoorenburg, G. F. (1992). “Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 421–437.
18.Sommers, M. S. , Nygaard, L. C. , and Pisoni, D. B. (1994). “Stimulus variability and spoken word recognition. I. Effects of variability in speaking rate and overall amplitude,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96, 1314–1324.
19.Sommers, M. S. , Kirk, K. I. , and Pisoni, D. B. (1997). “Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I. The effect of response format,” Ear Hear. 18, 89–99.
20.van Rooij, J. C. G. M. , and Plomp, R. (1991). “The effects of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 2985–2991.
21.Wagenaar, W. A. (1969). “Note on the construction of Digram-Balanced Latin Squares,” Psychol. Bull. 72, 384–386.
Article metrics loading...