Relative Intelligibility of the CID Spondees as Presented Via Monitored Live Voice

Jennings

et al. 2005

The aim of this investigation was to develop, digitally record, evaluate, and equate Mandarin trisyllabic words, which could then be used to measure the SRT. A selection of 90 frequently utilized trisyllabic words were digitally recorded by male and female talkers of Standard Mandarin and presented to 20 normally hearing subjects at 13 intensity levels (-10 to 14dB HL) in 2dB increments. Using logistic regression, psychometric functions were then calculated for all words. Twenty-four trisyllabic words with steep psychometric function slopes were selected, and their intensities were digitally adjusted to match the mean subject PTA (3.0 dB HL). The mean slopes for the 24 selected male and female trisyllabic Mandarin Chinese words were 11.3%/dB and 12.1%/dB, respectively. Thus we developed a list of words which were homogeneous with respect to audibility and slope. Digital recordings of the psychometrically equivalent trisyllabic words are available on compact disc.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Psychometrically equivalent trisyllabic words for speech reception threshold testing in Mandarin

Jennings

et al. 2005

“…The mean slope for English spondaic words has generally been reported between 7.2 %/dB and 10 %/dB (Hudgins et al, 1947;Hirsh et al, 1952;Young et al, 1982;Wilson & Strouse, 1999), going as high as 12 %/dB (Beattie et al, 1975;Ramkissoon, 2001). In other languages the mean slopes have also been similar to those found in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The validity and reliability of speech audiometry testing may be affected by a number of factors including the number of words included in the list (Resnick, 1962;Grubb, 1963), word selection and homogeneity (Luce, 1986;Cambron et al, 1991;Wilson & Carter, 2001), accent of the talker (Weisleder & Hodgson, 1989), method and level of presentation (Beattie et al, 1975;Hood & Poole, 1980;Pisoni, 1985), as well as type of recording (Kamm et al, 1980;Ridgway, 1986). Several studies have also found differences in speech audiometry results in hearing-impaired populations due to talker gender (Davis & Davidson, 1996;Stelmachowicz et al, 2002).…”

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 98%

Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers

Pola

et al. 2007

Despite the large number of individuals who speak Russian, only a limited number of high-quality speech audiometry materials are available in a standard dialect of Russian. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate speech audiometry materials that can be used to measure word recognition and SRT testing in quiet for native speakers of Russian. Familiar monosyllabic and bisyllabic words were digitally recorded by male and female talkers of Russian and subsequently evaluated by native listeners. Using logistic regression, psychometric functions were then calculated for all words. Selected monosyllabic words were digitally adjusted to create word recognition lists which are relatively homogeneous with respect to audibility and psychometric slope. Speech reception threshold materials were developed by selecting twenty-five bisyllabic words with relatively steep psychometric function slopes (12.1%/dB and 9.9 %/dB) and digitally equating their intensity to match the mean PTA of the native listeners. Digital recordings of the resulting psychometrically equivalent speech audiometry materials are available on compact disc.

“…A number of factors have been identified which can influence the validity and reliability of speech discrimination testing, including word selection and homogeneity (Brandy, 1966;Kreul et al, 1969;Hood & Poole, 1980;Luce, 1986;Cambron et al, 1991;Wilson & Carter, 2001), dialect of the talker and lexical neighborhood (Luce, 1986), number of words included in the list (Elpern, 1961;Resnick, 1962;Grubb, 1963a;Grubb, 1963b), and method and level of presentation (Campbell, 1965;Brandy, 1966;Creston et al, 1966;Beattie et al, 1975;Hood & Poole, 1980;Pisoni, 1985), as well as type of recording (Kamm et al, 1980;Ridgway, 1986). There have been a number of studies which have documented differences in speech discrimination due to talker gender in hearing-impaired populations (Davis & Davidson, 1996;Stelmachowicz et al, 2002).…”

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 98%

Psychometrically equivalent mandarin bisyllabic speech discrimination materials spoken by male and female talkers

Jennings

et al. 2005

The purpose of this study was to develop, digitally record, evaluate, and psychometrically equate a set of Mandarin bisyllabic word lists for use in measurement of speech discrimination. Familiar bisyllabic words were digitally recorded by male and female talkers of Standard Mandarin. Percentage of correct word recognition was measured for each word at ten intensity levels ( -5 to 40 dB HL) in 5 dB increments using 20 normally hearing subjects. Using logistic regression, 200 words with the steepest logistic regression slopes were included in four psychometrically equivalent word lists of 50 words each, and eight half-lists of 25 words each. To increase auditory homogeneity of the lists, the intensity of words in each list was digitally adjusted so that the threshold of each list was equal to the midpoint between the mean thresholds of the male and female half-lists. Digital recordings of the psychometrically equivalent word recognition lists are available on compact disc.