JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.36 799-807 August 1993.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Studebaker, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilmore, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Studebaker, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilmore, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Frequency-Importance and Transfer Functions for the Auditec of St. Louis Recordings of the NU-6 Word Test

Gerald A. Studebaker 1
Robert L. Sherbecoe 1

Christine Gilmore 1

1 Memphis State University Memphis, TN

Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test are reported. The functions were derived from the word recognition scores of 24 subjects with normal hearing who were tested under 128 conditions of filtering and talker-spectrum-matched noise. The importance function was broader and had a lower midpoint than the NU-6 importance function reported by Schum, Matthews, and Lee (1991), but still displayed a bimodal shape. The transfer function was steeper than the transfer function reported by Schum et al., but comparable in slope to the transfer function for low-context CNC words reported by Bell, Dirks, and Trine (1992). Results from a limited set of conditions presented in quiet suggest that the use of masking noise was partly responsible for the dissimilar importance and transfer functions obtained by Schum et al. and this study. Differences in the equipment used in each experiment and in the methods used to analyze the data appear to have contributed as well.

KEY WORDS: speech perception, Articulation index, speech audibility, speech intelligibility, speech recognition

Submitted on October 20, 1992
Accepted on February 8, 1993


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.