C.I.D. Auditory Tests W-1 and W-2

Benson, R. W.; Davis, Hallowell; Harrison, Charles E.; Hirsh, Ira J.; Reynolds, Elizabeth G.; Silverman, S. Richard

doi:10.1121/1.1906834

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6. ( Tillman & Carhart, 1966 ), PB List—Phonetically balance words lists ( Egan, 1948 ), Picture Identification Task ( Wilson & Antablin, 1980 ), PSI Test—Pediatric Speech Intelligibility Test ( Jerger et al., 1981 ), SPIN—Speech In Noise Test ( Kalikow et al., 1977 ), SSI—Synthetic Sentence Identification Test ( Speaks & Jerger, 1965 ), TMV—open-set sentences ( Helfer & Freyman, 2009 ), TTI—The NSMRL tri-word test of intelligibility ( Sergeant et al., 1979 ), W-22—Central Institute for the Deaf word lists ( Benson et al., 1951 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the Slope of the Psychometric Functions for Speech Intelligibility: A Systematic Survey

MacPherson

Akeroyd

2014

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many studies have looked at the effects of different listening conditions on the intelligibility of speech, their analyses have often concentrated on changes to a single value on the psychometric function, namely, the threshold. Far less commonly has the slope of the psychometric function, that is, the rate at which intelligibility changes with level, been considered. The slope of the function is crucial because it is the slope, rather than the threshold, that determines the improvement in intelligibility caused by any given improvement in signal-to-noise ratio by, for instance, a hearing aid. The aim of the current study was to systematically survey and reanalyze the psychometric function data available in the literature in an attempt to quantify the range of slope changes across studies and to identify listening conditions that affect the slope of the psychometric function. The data for 885 individual psychometric functions, taken from 139 different studies, were fitted with a common logistic equation from which the slope was calculated. Large variations in slope across studies were found, with slope values ranging from as shallow as 1% per dB to as steep as 44% per dB (median = 6.6% per dB), suggesting that the perceptual benefit offered by an improvement in signal-to-noise ratio depends greatly on listening environment. The type and number of maskers used were found to be major factors on the value of the slope of the psychometric function while other minor effects of target predictability, target corpus, and target/masker similarity were also found.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the Slope of the Psychometric Functions for Speech Intelligibility: A Systematic Survey

MacPherson

Akeroyd

2014

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "speech-reception threshold" and the abbreviation "SRT" have been used clinically in the United States to denote the level where a listener can understand correctly 50% of a speech sample that is presented without background competition. For this purpose, a standardized list of 36 two-syllable words was selected and recorded at Central Institute for the Deaf as CID Auditory Test W-1 (Benson et al, 1951). The words in CID Auditory Test W-1 were taken from a larger corpus of two-syllable words that were developed as Auditory Test Number 9 at the Harvard Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory during World War II (Hudgins et al, 1947).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a “Virtual Cocktail Party” for the Measurement of Speech Intelligibility in a Sound Field

Lilly¹,

Hutter²,

Lewis³

et al. 2011

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This technical report describes an approach to the measurement of speech intelligibility for sentences presented in a sound field in the presence of 16-talker babble. More specifically, we detail our (1) selection and preparation of target speech materials, (2) selection and preparation of experimental babble, (3) analog instrumentation, (4) software routines for attenuator control, (5) calibration, (6) experimental subjects, and (7) experimental protocol. In the final section of this report we present speech-intelligibility data from 16 young adults (21-30 yr of age) with normal hearing sensitivity for pure-tone signals.

show abstract

“…A few clinics or otologists may have had custom-built amplifying equipment but most practitioners did not (Watson & Tolan,p. 433); well documented, calibrated speech test recordings did not become widely available until the late 1940s (Benson et al, 1951;Hudgins, Hawkins, Karlin, & Stevens, 1947). The usual procedure for speech tests involved presentation by live voice in quiet surroundings at specified distances from the patient, who covered the untested ear, sometimes just by pressing down on the tragus.…”

Section: The State Of the Art 1930s-1940smentioning

confidence: 99%

The Master Hearing Aid

Curran

Galster

2013

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As early as the 1930s the term Master Hearing Aid (MHA) described a device used in the fitting of hearing aids. In their original form, the MHA was a desktop system that allowed for simulated or actual adjustment of hearing aid components that resulted in a changed hearing aid response. Over the years the MHA saw many embodiments and contributed to a number of rationales for the fitting of hearing aids. During these same years, the MHA was viewed by many as an inappropriate means of demonstrating hearing aids; the audio quality of the desktop systems was often superior to the hearing aids themselves. These opinions and the evolution of the MHA have molded the modern perception of hearing aids and the techniques used in the fitting of hearing aids. This article reports on a history of the MHA and its influence on the fitting of hearing aids. Keywords hearing aid, master hearing aid, audiologyCurran and Galster 109 various ways since, not always favorably, but in a general sense, it describes rather well the many alternative versions that have surfaced since the introduction of the electrical hearing aid.Figures 1, 2, and 3 show examples of MHAs from early to more recent times. The design and function of each succeeding version reflected the state-of-the-art of its era, adapting appropriately as technologies and fitting schemes evolved. The Nature of the ProblemThe problem of how-to-fit was recognized by the early pioneers in hearing aid development. In their search for an answer, they turned naturally to inventing "fitting machines," for their backgrounds were in engineering and manufacturing. The notion of using a specifically designed mechanical or electrical apparatus to execute a corrective prescription for a sensory deficit is not novel. An obvious example is the use of the phoropter, an effective adjunct in the field of visual correction. The phoropter calculates the correct lens prescription according to the patient's responses as lenses are being compared. The autorefractor is an automated expression of the phoropter, a computer controlled device that provides an objective account of refractive error without the need for patient input.However, with regard to compensating for hearing loss, there is one significant difference. Franks (1978), in commenting on the contrast between the instrumentation used by the optometrist in fitting eyeglasses and master hearing aids used by hearing aid professionals in the past, makes a telling observation:The optometrist is trying to prosthetically remedy a conductive problem, light transmission through the lens of the eye, and would never attempt to use a device . . . to attempt to remedy a receptor problem such as deterioration of the retinal structure. The audiologist is trying to prosthetically remedy a receptor problem, deterioration of the cochlear mechanisms . . . Trends in Amplification 17(2)The diminished transmission of the acoustic signal through the impaired middle ear is equivalent to the diminished transmission of visual stimuli through the defecti...

show abstract

C.I.D. Auditory Tests W-1 and W-2

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Variations in the Slope of the Psychometric Functions for Speech Intelligibility: A Systematic Survey

Variations in the Slope of the Psychometric Functions for Speech Intelligibility: A Systematic Survey

Development of a “Virtual Cocktail Party” for the Measurement of Speech Intelligibility in a Sound Field

The Master Hearing Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About