Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether subjective judgments of clarity or intelligibility would be rated equally among conditions in which speech was equated for predicted intelligibility (using the Speech Intelligibility Index, SII) but varied in bandwidth. Twenty listeners with normal hearing rated clarity and intelligibility for sentence material (Hearing In Noise Test) in speech-shaped noise at six paired low- and high-pass filtered conditions in which SII was equated for each pair. For three paired conditions, predicted intelligibility increased as SII increased monotonically (0.3, 0.4, 0.5). In the remaining paired conditions, SII continued to increase monotonically (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) but predicted intelligibility was held at a maximal level (> or = 95%). Predicted intelligibility was estimated from the transfer function relating SII to speech recognition scores determined in preliminary experiments. Differences in ratings between paired low- and high-pass filtered sentences did not reach statistical significance for either clarity or intelligibility, indicating that the spectral differences at equivalent SIIs did not influence the judgments for either of the two dimensions. For conditions in which predicted intelligibility increased, both clarity and intelligibility ratings increased in a similar manner. For conditions in which predicted intelligibility was maximized, intelligibility ratings remained the same statistically across conditions while clarity ratings changed modestly. Although high correlations were observed between clarity and intelligibility ratings, intelligibility ratings were consistently higher than clarity ratings for comparable conditions. The results indicated that listeners with normal hearing produced clarity and intelligibility ratings for the same speech material and experimental conditions that were highly related but differed in magnitude. Caution is required when substituting clarity for intelligibility.

[1]  B Hagerman,et al.  Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids. , 1985, Scandinavian audiology.

[2]  D. P. Goldstein,et al.  Effects of room reverberation upon hearing aid quality judgments. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[3]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  R M Cox,et al.  Distribution of short-term rms levels in conversational speech. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  J M Festen,et al.  Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[7]  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.

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

[9]  H. Levitt,et al.  Paired comparison judgments for hearing aid selection in children. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  H. K. Dunn,et al.  Statistical Measurements on Conversational Speech , 1940 .

[13]  D B Hawkins,et al.  A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[14]  R A Bentler,et al.  Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

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

[17]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[19]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  BASIC-Program for calculating the loudness of sounds from their 1/3-oct. band spectra according to ISO 532 B , 1984 .

[20]  Punch Jl,et al.  Quality judgments of hearing aid-processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners. , 1978 .

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

[22]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[23]  J M Kates,et al.  Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  S. C. Purdy,et al.  FIABILITE, SENSIBILITE ET VALIDITE DU JUGEMENT DE L'INTELLIGIBILITE DE LA PAROLE OBTENUES PAR ESTIMATION DE LA GRANDEUR, ESTIMATION CATEGORIELLE ET COMPARAISON PAR PAIRES CHEZ DES SUJETS AGES , 1992 .

[26]  D D Dirks,et al.  Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[28]  D D Dirks,et al.  Subjective Judgments of Speech Clarity Measured by Paired Comparisons and Category Rating , 1997, Ear and hearing.

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

[30]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Regression equations for the transfer functions of ANSI S3.5-1969. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  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.

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

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

[34]  A. Parducci Chapter 5 – CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS: A RANGE–FREQUENCY ANALYSIS* , 1974 .

[35]  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.

[36]  J. Punch,et al.  Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech. , 1977, Journal of the American Auditory Society.

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

[38]  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.

[39]  D D Dirks,et al.  Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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