2011
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2010.524254
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Danish hearing in noise test

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
121
1
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
6
121
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, missing acoustic information can be extrapolated using lexical, semantic and/or syntactic information. Approaches for measuring macroscopic speech intelligibility range from presenting syntactically diverse meaningful sentences as in the "hearing in noise test" (e.g., Nilsson et al, 1994;Nielsen and Dau, 2011) and the "conversational language understanding evaluation" (Nielsen and Dau, 2009) to using matrix sentence tests (e.g., Hagerman, 1982;Wagener et al, 2003), where semantically unpredictable sentences are presented within a fixed syntactical structure. Therefore, macroscopic speech intelligibility tests differ in the semantic and syntactic predictability provided, while lexical effects play a considerable role in any of these tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, missing acoustic information can be extrapolated using lexical, semantic and/or syntactic information. Approaches for measuring macroscopic speech intelligibility range from presenting syntactically diverse meaningful sentences as in the "hearing in noise test" (e.g., Nilsson et al, 1994;Nielsen and Dau, 2011) and the "conversational language understanding evaluation" (Nielsen and Dau, 2009) to using matrix sentence tests (e.g., Hagerman, 1982;Wagener et al, 2003), where semantically unpredictable sentences are presented within a fixed syntactical structure. Therefore, macroscopic speech intelligibility tests differ in the semantic and syntactic predictability provided, while lexical effects play a considerable role in any of these tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To quantify the performance of the blind classification, the hit rate minus the false-alarm rate (H-FA) was computed by comparing the detection of direct-sound components to the short-term SRR classification in the seven frequency channels. Clean training sentences from the Danish hearing in noise test corpus (Danish HINT) (Nielsen and Dau, 2011) were randomly selected and convolved with BRIRs corresponding to room A and room B from the Surrey database (Hummersone et al, 2010). The Surrey database was recorded with a Cortex head and torso simulator (HATS).…”
Section: Classification Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Speech sentences from the Danish HINT (Nielsen and Dau, 2011) were used as stimuli. The clean speech signals were convolved with the listener's BRIRs, h brir , and then processed by the compression conditions.…”
Section: Stimuli and Processing Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…При выполнении речевой аудиометрии посредством фраз максимальная разборчивость достигается при меньших уровнях интен-сивности, что позволяет определять пороги восприятия речи точнее и эффективнее, чем при использовании от-дельных слов [7,8]. Для тестирования могут предъявлять-ся два типа фраз: смысловые, взятые из жизненных ситуа-ций, с нефиксированной грамматической структурой [9,10], и фразы с так называемой матриксной структурой, синтаксически фиксированные, но семантически непред-сказуемые, формируемые путем комбинации слов в слу-чайном порядке [11][12][13]. Предложения матриксного типа вследствие отсутствия в них смыслового содержания трудны для запоминания, что позволяет многократно те-стировать пациента при аудиологическом обследовании в процессе лечения и реабилитации.…”
Section: оригинальные статьиunclassified