PubMed · 14882613
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G LIDEN. 1951-08-29. [Speech audiometry].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14882613/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
During the acoustical design of, e.g., auditoria or open-plan offices, it is important to know how speech can be perceived in various parts of the room. Different objective methods have been developed to measure and predict speech intelligibility, and these have been extensively used in various spaces. In this study, two such methods were compared, the speech transmission index (STI) and the speech intelligibility index (SII). Also the simplification of the STI, the room acoustics speech transmission index (RASTI), was considered. These quantities are all based on determining an apparent speech-to-noise ratio on selected frequency bands and summing them using a specific weighting. For comparison, some data were needed on the possible differences of these methods resulting from the calculation scheme and also measuring equipment. Their prediction accuracy was also of interest. Measurements were made in a laboratory having adjustable noise level and absorption, and in a real auditorium. It was found that the measurement equipment, especially the selection of the loudspeaker, can greatly affect the accuracy of the results. The prediction accuracy of the RASTI was found acceptable, if the input values for the prediction are accurately known, even though the studied space was not ideally diffuse.
BACKGROUND: Speech audiometry plays an important role for hearing evaluation in children. Hearing impaired children, such as those with cochlear implant (CI) who frequently undergo testing, learn the test words by heart. Furthermore, the standard tests use words of former time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the most frequently words of modern children's literature a speech assessment test was developed for children between 1 to 8 years. The material was first evaluated on normal hearing children. In a second step the phoneme and word perception scores of 35 CI children were measured using 60 - 100 dB SPL according to the most comfortable level (MCL) in free sound field. RESULTS: The performance-intensity function for the single words were highly comparable with those of the Freiburger or Göttinger speech perception test. The average speech reception threshold in CI children was 44 % (test I), 36 % (test II), 63 % (test III) and 69 % (test IV), respectively. Compared to the Mainzer and Göttinger speech perception test the new words were more difficult to understand than those of the known tests. However, a statistically significant difference could be noted only for test II. CONCLUSIONS: The new developed "Würzburger speech perception test" appears to be a useful additional tool for the evaluation of hearing impaired children in addition to the standard test procedures.