Comparison of certain measures of speech and noise level.

Four different methods of measuring speech and noise level in speech audiometry are compared. The methods differ with regard to the temporal characteristic of the integrator used for determining the level. The four methods are characterized by their so-called detector/indicator characteristics, being 'fast', 'slow', 'impulse', and long-term integration. It is concluded that the method using long-term integration is preferable. If the speech material consists of short speech segments such as isolated words separated by pauses, the long-term rms level should be measured without integrating over the pauses between the speech segments.

[1]  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.

[2]  L.L. Beranek,et al.  The Design of Speech Communication Systems , 1947, Proceedings of the IRE.

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

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

[5]  H Sjögren Objective measurements of speech level. , 1973, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[6]  M P Haggard,et al.  The four alternative auditory feature test (FAAF)--linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. , 1987, British journal of audiology.

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

[8]  C Ludvigsen,et al.  DANTALE: a new Danish speech material. , 1989, Scandinavian audiology.