Measuring speech-in-speech intelligibility with target location uncertainty

Authors

  • Niels Søgaard Jensen Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Kongevejen 243, DK-3070 Snekkersten, Denmark
  • René Burmand Johannesson Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Kongevejen 243, DK-3070 Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Søren Laugesen Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Kongevejen 243, DK-3070 Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Renskje K. Hietkamp Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Kongevejen 243, DK-3070 Snekkersten, Denmark

Abstract

The most common speech-intelligibility tests do only to a limited extent reflect the situations where hearing-impaired people typically experience speech-intelligibility problems in their everyday life. One major problem is that the resulting speech reception threshold (SRT) typically is unrealistically low. In an attempt to increase the ecological validity of the Danish Dantale II speech-intelligibility test, a modified version of the test was developed. The new version includes speech masking and target location uncertainty as ways to increase the resemblance to real-life situations. In the present study, test results were obtained from 16 hearing- impaired listeners and comparison was made to results obtained in three other test conditions, all having a fixed target position but including different types of masking signals. The results showed that the introduction of speech masking as well as target location uncertainty contributed to an increase in SRT.

References

Brand T. and Kollmeier B. (2002). “Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 111, 2801-10.

Brungart, D.S. and Simpson, B. D. (2007) “Cocktail party listening in a dynamic multitalker environment” Percept. Psychophys., 69, 79-91.

Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., and Westermann S. (2001): “ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment” Audiology, 40, 148-57.

Festen J. and Plomp R. (1990). “Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 88, 1725-36.

Francart, T., van Wieringen, A., and Wouters, J. (2011). “Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests” Int. J. Audiol., 50, 2-13.

Hagerman B. and Kinnefors C. (1995). “Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise” Scand. Audiol., 24, 71-77. Helfer, K. S. and Freyman, R. L. (2008). “Aging and Speech-on-Speech Masking” Ear Hear., 29, 87-98.

Kidd, G., Jr., Arbogast T. L., Mason, C. R., and Gallun F. J. (2005). “The advantage of knowing where to listen” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 118, 3804-15.

Singh, G., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., and Schneider, B. A. (2008). “The effect of age on auditory spatial attention in conditions of real and simulated spatial separation” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124, 1294-1305.

Wagener, K., Josvassen, J. L., and Ardenkjaer, R. (2003). ”Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise” Int. J. Audiol., 42, 10-17

Additional Files

Published

2011-12-15

How to Cite

Jensen, N. S., Johannesson, R. B., Laugesen, S., & Hietkamp, R. K. (2011). Measuring speech-in-speech intelligibility with target location uncertainty. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 3, 135–142. Retrieved from http://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2011-16

Issue

Section

2011/1. Indicators of hearing impairment and measures of speech perception