Purpose-The extent to which a sentence retains its level of spoken intelligibility relative to other sentences in a list under a variety of difficult listening situations was examined.Method-The strength of this sentence effect was studied using the Central Institute for the Deaf Everyday Speech sentences and both generalizability analysis (Experiments 1 and 2) and correlation (Analyses 1 and 2).Results-Experiments 1 and 2 indicated the presence of a prominent sentence effect (substantial variance accounted for) across a large range of group mean intelligibilities (Experiment 1) and different spectral contents (Experiment 2). In Correlation Analysis 1, individual sentence scores were found to be correlated across listeners in each group producing widely ranging levels of performance. The sentence effect accounted for over half of the variance between listener-ability groups. In Correlation Analysis 2, correlations accounted for an average of 42% of the variance across a variety of listening conditions. However, when the auditory data were compared to speech-reading data, the cross-modal correlations were quite low.Conclusions-The stability of relative sentence intelligibility (the sentence effect) appears across a wide range of mean intelligibilities, across different spectral compositions, and across different listener performance levels, but not across sensory modalities.
Keywords sentence intelligibility; generalizability analysis; CID sentencesThe intelligibility of sentences is very high when spoken by typical talkers to listeners with normal hearing. However, under difficult listening conditions, such as those imposed by poor signal-to-noise ratio, filtering, or hearing loss, intelligibility may be reduced substantially. Further, under given conditions there may be considerable differences in intelligibility among sentences within a pool of sentences. This is reflected in the significant difficulties encountered when creating lists of sentences that are equal in intelligibility (Bilger, Neutzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984;Giolas & Duffy, 1973;Hood & Dixon, 1969;Rippy, Dancer, & Pittenger, 1983;Webster, 1984). This difficulty exists in creating sentence materials for speech reading as well (Hinkle, 1978;Wilson, Dancer, & Stamper, 1984). Because of learning effects associated with being exposed to a sentence twice, such lists are desirable when the performance of one individual is to be assessed under a variety of conditions.
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptDifferences in intelligibility are even more apparent when individual sentences are considered. Healy and Warren (2003), for example, presented the 100 Central Institute for the Deaf (CID; Davis & Silverman, 1978) Everyday Speech sentences through narrow-band filters and found that the mean sentence intelligibility (key words correct per sentence) from the least intelligible to the most intelligible of the 100 sentences ranged over 80 percentage points within each of several listening conditions.Many...