Effects of Noise on NST and NU 6 Stimuli

This study determined how normal-hearing listeners' performance on a nonsense syllable test (NST) was affected by three noise competitors, and how these responses differed from those on the standard NU 6 meaningful word test. Twenty young adult listeners heard the stimuli via earphones and provided verbal responses to the NST and NU 6 items in competition with: white noise, multitalker noise, and white noise which was amplitude modulated by the multitalker noise, each at a 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Responses were scored on a whole-word (all-or-none) basis. Statistical analyses revealed that listeners' performance was always poorer on the NST than on the NU 6 regardless of competitor type; and that scores were better in the multitalker noise followed by white noise and amplitude modulated white noise. These data and those from earlier studies indicate that the NST is sufficiently difficult in quiet that it may not warrant testing in noise.

[1]  Ira J. Hirsh,et al.  CX Problems Related to the Use of Speech in Clinical Audiometry , 1955, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[2]  L. L. Young,et al.  Effectiveness of speech and noise maskers on numbers embedded in continuous discourse , 1975 .

[3]  A. House,et al.  A masking noise with speech-envelope characteristics for studying intelligibility. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Development of materials for speech audiometry. , 1952, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[5]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Sensitivity to Changes in the Intensity of White Noise and Its Relation to Masking and Loudness , 1947 .

[6]  J. Goodman,et al.  Perceptual masking of spondees by combinations of talkers , 1975 .

[7]  T W Tillman,et al.  Perceptual masking in multiple sound backgrounds. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  T E WALSH,et al.  Speech Audiometry , 1953, Journal of Laryngology and Otology.

[9]  J. L. Danhauer,et al.  Effects of four noise competitors on the California Consonant Test. , 1979, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  D. Dirks,et al.  Effect of pulsed masking on selected speech materials. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  R. Carhart,et al.  PROBLEMS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF SPEECH DISCRIMINATION. , 1965, Archives of otolaryngology.

[12]  E. T. Curry,et al.  A comparative evaluation of five speech discrimination measures. , 1968, Journal of speech and hearing research.