The Relation Among Three Selected Auditory Speech Thresholds

Chaiklin, Joseph B.

doi:10.1044/jshr.0203.237

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A closed response set (pictures) has the same effect (Lloyd and Kaplan, 1978). Chaiklin (1959) showed that instructions given to the subject significantly affected threshold measures. Tillman and Jerger (1959) failed to demonstrate a practice effect for dealing with faint stimuli, but did show that familiarization with the words before the test eliminated a significant learning effect.…”

Section: Practical Considerations In the Control Of Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Validity and Reliability of Speech Audiometry

Ostergard¹

1983

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Practical Considerations In the Control Of Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing the Validity and Reliability of Speech Audiometry

Ostergard¹

1983

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An additional important advantage of studying detection, relative to recognition, is that it would be expected to lower the signal-to-noise ͑S-N͒ ratio at which a threshold level of performance can be measured. The classic literature shows the speech detection threshold to be about 9 dB below the speech reception threshold ͑Thurlow et al., 1948;Chaiklin, 1959͒. This difference could be useful when release from informational masking is measured in degraded speech or in hearing-impaired populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech detection in spatial and nonspatial speech maskers

Balakrishnan

Freyman

2008

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of perceived spatial differences on masking release was examined using a 4AFC speech detection paradigm. Targets were 20 words produced by a female talker. Maskers were recordings of continuous streams of nonsense sentences spoken by two female talkers and mixed into each of two channels ͑two talker, and the same masker time reversed͒. Two masker spatial conditions were employed: "RF" with a 4 ms time lead to the loudspeaker 60°horizontally to the right, and "FR" with the time lead to the front ͑0°͒ loudspeaker. The reference nonspatial "F" masker was presented from the front loudspeaker only. Target presentation was always from the front loudspeaker. In Experiment 1, target detection threshold for both natural and time-reversed spatial maskers was 17-20 dB lower than that for the nonspatial masker, suggesting that significant release from informational masking occurs with spatial speech maskers regardless of masker understandability. In Experiment 2, the effectiveness of the FR and RF maskers was evaluated as the right loudspeaker output was attenuated until the two-source maskers were indistinguishable from the F masker, as measured independently in a discrimination task. Results indicated that spatial release from masking can be observed with barely noticeable target-masker spatial differences.

show abstract

“…A nearly identical level would have likely been obtained for a speech detection threshold. A 9-dB higher level is required for a spondee recognition threshold than for a threshold for detection or awareness of spondees (Chaiklin, 1959). Persons presenting with functional hearing loss, who likely base their judgments on loudness, would not take into account the level difference required for recognition.…”

Section: Explanation For the Large St-pta Discrepancy In Persons Feigmentioning

confidence: 99%