The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing
Abstract
The speech-reception threshold (SRT) for sentences presented in a fluctuating interfering background sound of 80 dBA SPL is measured for 20 normal-hearing listeners and 20 listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. The interfering sounds range from steady-state noise, via modulated noise, to a single competing voice. Two voices are used, one male and one female, and the spectrum of the masker is shaped according to these voices. For both voices, the SRT is measured as well in noise spectrally shaped according to the target voice as shaped according to the other voice. The results show that, for normal-hearing listeners, the SRT for sentences in modulated noise is 4–6 dB lower than for steady-state noise; for sentences masked by a competing voice, this difference is 6–8 dB. For listeners with moderate sensorineural hearing loss, elevated thresholds are obtained without an appreciable effect of masker fluctuations. The implications of these results for estimating a hearing handicap in everyday conditions are discussed. By using the articulation index (AI), it is shown that hearing-impaired individuals perform poorer than suggested by the loss of audibility for some parts of the speech signal. Finally, three mechanisms are discussed that contribute to the absence of unmasking by masker fluctuations in hearing-impaired listeners. The low sensation level at which the impaired listeners receive the masker seems a major determinant. The second and third factors are: reduced temporal resolution and a reduction in comodulation masking release, respectively.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.705006 · Cited by 809
The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer
Hawley, M. L., Litovsky, R. Y., & Culling, J. F. (2004) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1639908 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Authors
- Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R.
- Venue
- The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
- Publisher
- Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
- Published
- 1990-10-01
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1725-1736
- ISSN
- 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-8524
- OpenAlex
- W2091766358
- Cited by
- 856
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1121/1.400247
- The paper
- Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400247
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.