27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Speech-in-noise perception in musicians: A review

      , ,
      Hearing Research
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

          A large set of sentence materials, chosen for their uniformity in length and representation of natural speech, has been developed for the measurement of sentence speech reception thresholds (sSRTs). The mean-squared level of each digitally recorded sentence was adjusted to equate intelligibility when presented in spectrally matched noise to normal-hearing listeners. These materials were cast into 25 phonemically balanced lists of ten sentences for adaptive measurement of sentence sSRTs. The 95% confidence interval for these measurements is +/- 2.98 dB for sSRTs in quiet and +/- 2.41 dB for sSRTs in noise, as defined by the variability of repeated measures with different lists. Average sSRTs in quiet were 23.91 dB(A). Average sSRTs in 72 dB(A) noise were 69.08 dB(A), or -2.92 dB signal/noise ratio. Low-pass filtering increased sSRTs slightly in quiet and noise as the 4- and 8-kHz octave bands were eliminated. Much larger increases in SRT occurred when the 2-kHz octave band was eliminated, and bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. Reliability was not degraded substantially until bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. The statistical reliability and efficiency of the test suit it to practical applications in which measures of speech intelligibility are required.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

            This paper describes a shortened and improved version of the Speech in Noise (SIN) Test (Etymotic Research, 1993). In the first two of four experiments, the level of a female talker relative to that of four-talker babble was adjusted sentence by sentence to produce 50% correct scores for normal-hearing subjects. In the second two experiments, those sentences-in-babble that produced either lack of equivalence or high across-subject variability in scores were discarded. These experiments produced 12 equivalent lists, each containing six sentences, with one sentence at each adjusted signal-to-noise ratio of 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, and 0 dB. Six additional lists were also made equivalent when the scores of particular pairs were averaged. The final lists comprise the "QuickSIN" test that measures the SNR a listener requires to understand 50% of key words in sentences in a background of babble. The standard deviation of single-list scores is 1.4 dB SNR for hearing-impaired subjects, based on test-retest data. A single QuickSIN list takes approximately one minute to administer and provides an estimate of SNR loss accurate to +/-2.7 dB at the 95% confidence level.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.

              Recent systematic reviews and empirical evaluations of the cognitive sciences literature suggest that publication and other reporting biases are prevalent across diverse domains of cognitive science. In this review, we summarize the various forms of publication and reporting biases and other questionable research practices, and overview the available methods for probing into their existence. We discuss the available empirical evidence for the presence of such biases across the neuroimaging, animal, other preclinical, psychological, clinical trials, and genetics literature in the cognitive sciences. We also highlight emerging solutions (from study design to data analyses and reporting) to prevent bias and improve the fidelity in the field of cognitive science research. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hearing Research
                Hearing Research
                Elsevier BV
                03785955
                September 2017
                September 2017
                : 352
                :
                : 49-69
                Article
                10.1016/j.heares.2017.02.006
                28213134
                e25dd626-f2d8-4ce1-9649-db181903f678
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article