Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners.
暂无分享,去创建一个
Tammo Houtgast | S Theo Goverts | Erwin L J George | Joost M Festen | S. T. Goverts | Adriana A Zekveld | Sophia E Kramer | T. Houtgast | A. Zekveld | S. Kramer | E. George | J. Festen
[1] S. Gordon-Salant,et al. Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[2] A Boothroyd,et al. Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[3] D. Frisina,et al. Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[4] René H Gifford,et al. Psychophysical estimates of nonlinear cochlear processing in younger and older listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[5] Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al. Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[6] S. Gordon-Salant. Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm. , 1987, Ear and hearing.
[7] Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[8] B. Moore,et al. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. , 1989, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.
[9] B C Moore,et al. Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[10] H. Levitt. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[11] Larry E Humes,et al. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[12] J M Festen,et al. Limited resolution of spectral contrast and hearing loss for speech in noise. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[13] Tammo Houtgast,et al. Using the Speech Transmission Index for predicting non-native speech intelligibility. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[14] R. Plomp,et al. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[15] H. Gustafsson,et al. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[16] A. Nabelek,et al. Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[17] Brian C. J. Moore,et al. Effects of envelope fluctuations on gap detection , 1992, Hearing Research.
[18] R. Plomp,et al. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[19] T. Houtgast,et al. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[20] J. G. Snodgrass,et al. On the generality of the perceptual closure effect. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[21] B. Moore,et al. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise , 1993 .
[22] R. Patterson,et al. The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[23] R Plomp,et al. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[24] T. Houtgast,et al. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[25] C Ludvigsen. Relations among some psychoacoustic parameters in normal and cochlearly impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[26] 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.
[27] J M Festen. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[28] B C Moore,et al. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[29] Thomas Baer,et al. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .
[30] S. Gordon-Salant,et al. Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[31] J R Dubno,et al. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[32] B. Moore,et al. Gap detection and masking in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[33] Thomas Lunner,et al. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.
[34] R Plomp,et al. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. I: Development of test battery. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[35] I M Noordhoek,et al. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[36] Sid P. Bacon,et al. Cochlear Compression: Perceptual Measures and Implications for Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2003, Ear and hearing.
[37] L. Humes. Do ‘Auditory Processing’ Tests Measure Auditory Processing in the Elderly? , 2005, Ear and hearing.
[38] L L Elliott,et al. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[39] A. Boothroyd,et al. Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[40] P. Divenyi,et al. Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the elderly. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[41] R. Plomp. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids , 1977 .
[42] R. M. Warren. Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.
[43] L. Humes,et al. Erratum: Auditory filter shapes in normal‐hearing, noise‐masked normal, and elderly listeners [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2903–2914 (1993)] , 1993 .
[44] S. Stephens,et al. The Input for a Damaged Cochlea-A Brief Review , 1976 .
[45] P E Souza,et al. Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[46] J M Festen,et al. The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. , 1996, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.
[47] A. Boothroyd,et al. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[48] D D Dirks,et al. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[49] Michelle R. Molis,et al. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[50] M. Daneman,et al. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[51] C. Watson,et al. Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[52] Robert C. Bilger,et al. Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .
[53] R. Plomp,et al. Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbyacusis. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[54] R. Plomp,et al. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. III. Additional data and final discussion , 1992 .
[55] K. S. Rhebergen,et al. A Speech Intelligibility Index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[56] W. Jesteadt,et al. Forward masking as a function of frequency, masker level, and signal delay. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[57] S. Bacon,et al. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[58] J. Grose,et al. Gap Duration Discrimination in Listeners with Cochlear Hearing Loss: Effects of Gap and Marker Duration, Frequency Separation, and Mode of Presentation , 2001, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
[59] L E Humes,et al. Auditory filter shapes in normal-hearing, noise-masked normal, and elderly listeners. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[60] S. Gordon-Salant,et al. Temporal gap resolution in listeners with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[61] K. Grant,et al. Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[62] T Houtgast,et al. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[63] K. Snell,et al. Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[64] G. Studebaker,et al. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[65] A R Horwitz,et al. Use of context by young and aged adults with normal hearing. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[66] Ken W. Grant,et al. The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context , 1997 .
[68] L. L. Elliott,et al. Verbal auditory closure and the speech perception in noise (SPIN) Test. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.
[69] P. Fitzgibbons,et al. Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.