Audibility-Index Functions for the Connected Speech Test

Objective A study was performed to derive a frequency importance function (FIF), a performance-intensity funciton (PIF), and a transfer function (TF) for the audio compact disc version of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Design CST passages were masked with talker-spectrum-matched (TSM) noise and presented to two groups of normal-hearing adult subjects. One group (N = 48) listened through a wideband filter, seven low-pass filters, and eight high-pass filters at six signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios. The other group (N = 12) listened through just the wideband filter at 12 S/N ratios. The FIF was based on the data for the first group while the PIF was based on the data for the second group. The results of both groups were used to determine the TF between CST scores and audibility-index (AI) values. Results The FIF, in 1/3-octave bands, is a bimodal curve with a minor peak at 500 Hz, a major peak at 1600 to 2000 Hz, and a midpoint of 1619 Hz. The PIF in TSM noise and the TF are both asymmetric S-shaped curves; their respective slopes are 12%/dB and 11%/0.0333 AI. Conclusions Comparisons between these results and the findings of other studies reconfirm that different speech materials have different AI functions. The FIF for the CST overlaps 1/3-octave band functions for continuous discourse and average speech but does not have the same shape as those functions. The TF indicates that CST passages are generally more intelligible than isolated monosyllabic words (NU6 lists) and somewhat less intelligible than continuous discourse. The former result is probably due at least partly to the effects of context whereas the latter result may be due primarily to how clearly the talkers pronounced the speech materials.

[1]  H. Fletcher,et al.  The Perception of Speech and Its Relation to Telephony , 1950 .

[2]  Gerald A Studebaker,et al.  Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Frequency Importance Function for Isolated Words and for Conversation of Female Talkers , 1964 .

[4]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[5]  C. P. Janota,et al.  Frequency importance functions for words, sentences, and continuous discourse. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  R M Cox,et al.  Intelligibility of average talkers in typical listening environments. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  L Magnusson Speech intelligibility index transfer functions and speech spectra for two Swedish speech recognition tests. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology.

[9]  T Houtgast,et al.  A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  R M Cox,et al.  The Connected Speech Test version 3: audiovisual administration. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[11]  R M Cox,et al.  Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  G A Studebaker,et al.  The effect of noise spectrum on speech recognition performance-intensity functions. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Speech Spectra for Six Recorded Monosyllabic Word Tests , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[14]  D D Dirks,et al.  Frequency-importance functions for words in high- and low-context sentences. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[15]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

[16]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[17]  R M Cox,et al.  Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[18]  D D Dirks,et al.  Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[19]  Gerald A. Studebaker,et al.  Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance , 1992 .

[20]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Evaluating relative speech recognition performance using the proficiency factor and rationalized arcsine differences. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[24]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  R M Cox,et al.  Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  A frequency importance function for a new monosyllabic word test , 1998 .

[30]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[31]  John Fletcher,et al.  Speech Understanding and Aging , 1977 .