This study was designed to investigate the variability in performance frequently observed when speech discrimination is assessed in the presence of background noise. Using the binomial distribution, analysis suggests variability is substantial, so speech discrimination scores obtained in noise should be interpreted with caution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DanhauerJ. L.DoyleP. C.LucksL. (1985) Effects of noise on Nst and Nu 6 stimuli. Ear and Hearing, 6, 266–269.
2.
GengelR. W.MillerL.RosenthalE. (1981) Between and within listener variability in response to Cid W-22 presented in noise. Ear and Hearing, 2, 78–81.
3.
KleinA. J. (1989) Assessing speech recognition in noise for listeners with a signal processor hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 10, 50–57.
4.
LovenF. C.HawkinsD. B. (1983) Interlist equivalency of the Cid W-22 word lists presented in quiet and noise. Earing and Hearing, 4, 91–97.
5.
MillerG. A. (1947) The masking of speech. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 105–129.
6.
PapsoC. S.BloodI. M. (1989) Word recognition skills of children and adults in background noise. Ear and Hearing, 10, 235–236.
7.
RaffinM. J. M.SchaferD. (1980) Application of a probability model based on the binomial distribution to speech discrimination scores. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 570–575.
8.
RaffinM. J. M.ThorntonA. R. (1980) Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores: A research note. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 5–18.
9.
ThorntonA. R.RaffinM. J. M. (1978) Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 507–518.
10.
TylerR. S.KukF. K. (1989) The effects of “noise suppression” hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise. Ear and Hearing, 10, 243–249.
