Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners.

This study investigated the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of speech intelligibility judgments for hearing aid evaluation. Subjects aged 60-87 years judged the intelligibility of sentences using either magnitude estimation, category scaling or paired comparisons. The 60+ age group was chosen as representative of the majority of hearing aid wearers. Speech recognition scores for Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) sentences and Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) words were also obtained. The speech was bandpass filtered using filter settings that produce a monotonic increase in predicted intelligibility based on articulation index theory. Speech recognition scores and intelligibility judgments were obtained for each of eight filter conditions. Test-retest reliability was poorest for paired comparisons and CID sentence scores. There were no differences in sensitivity among the three psychophysical procedures. Intelligibility judgments and NU-6 scores were more sensitive than CID sentence scores to differences among conditions. The results indicated that intelligibility judgments are valid measures of speech recognition.

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

[2]  J. Jeffers.  Quality judgment in hearing aid selection. , 1960, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[3]  L H Nakatani,et al.  A sensitive test of speech communication quality. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  B Hagerman,et al.  The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  M R Chial,et al.  Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[7]  H L Witter,et al.  Quality judgments of hearing aid transduced speech. , 1971, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  J. Zwislocki.  Group and individual relations between sensation magnitudes and their numerical estimates , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  P. Newall,et al.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[11]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Use of the magnitude estimation technique for assessing the performance of text-to-speech synthesis systems. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  S. M. Newhall.  Comparability of the method of single stimuli and the method of paired comparisons. , 1954, The American journal of psychology.

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

[14]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[15]  R Carhart,et al.  An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. , 1966, [Technical report] SAM-TR. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.

[16]  H Levitt,et al.  Experiments with a programmable master hearing aid. , 1987, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  D. P. Goldstein,et al.  Hearing aid quality judgments in reverberant and nonreverberant environments using a magnitude estimation procedure. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[18]  S ZERLIN,et al.  A new approach to hearing-aid selection. , 1962, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An evaluation of some assumptions underlying the articulation index. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[21]  S. S. Stevens.  The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[22]  D P Goldstein,et al.  Effect of Low‐Frequency Hearing Aid Response on Four Measures of Speech Perception , 1984, Ear and hearing.

[23]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Magnitude estimations of the intelligibility and quality of speech in noise. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[24]  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.

[25]  C Speaks,et al.  Intelligibility of connected discourse. , 1972, Journal of speech and hearing research.