Comfortable loudness levels for speech: effects of signal-to-noise ratios and instructions.

The Journal of auditory research Pub Date : 1984-07-01
R C Beattie, B E Himes
{"title":"Comfortable loudness levels for speech: effects of signal-to-noise ratios and instructions.","authors":"R C Beattie,&nbsp;B E Himes","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effect of S/N from +20 to -10 db on loudness levels of connected discourse with or without background cafeteria noise was investigated for one set of instructions sampling the most comfortable loudness level (MCLL) and a second set sampling the upper limit of CLL. Normal young adults (N:16) showed no significant differences for either set of instructions in quiet or from 20 to 0 db S/N but mn MCLL was about 5 db lower at -10 db. Elderly hearing-aid wearers (N:10, mn age: 77 yrs) yielded mn differences across S/N of less than 5 db for either set of instructions. No data indicate that the speech CLL accurately predicts optimal hearing-aid gain, while the literature indicates that occasionally the desired maximum intelligibility frequently is not obtained at the MCLL. We question whether MCLL for speech justifies its measurement. A discussion is presented of the Comfort Level Method of adjusting gain in hearing-aid evaluations and a perhaps preferable Threshold Level Method in which the test stimulus is presented at a level corresponding to the predicted threshold and the aid's volume control is adjusted until S just perceives the signal.</p>","PeriodicalId":76646,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of auditory research","volume":"24 3","pages":"213-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of auditory research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effect of S/N from +20 to -10 db on loudness levels of connected discourse with or without background cafeteria noise was investigated for one set of instructions sampling the most comfortable loudness level (MCLL) and a second set sampling the upper limit of CLL. Normal young adults (N:16) showed no significant differences for either set of instructions in quiet or from 20 to 0 db S/N but mn MCLL was about 5 db lower at -10 db. Elderly hearing-aid wearers (N:10, mn age: 77 yrs) yielded mn differences across S/N of less than 5 db for either set of instructions. No data indicate that the speech CLL accurately predicts optimal hearing-aid gain, while the literature indicates that occasionally the desired maximum intelligibility frequently is not obtained at the MCLL. We question whether MCLL for speech justifies its measurement. A discussion is presented of the Comfort Level Method of adjusting gain in hearing-aid evaluations and a perhaps preferable Threshold Level Method in which the test stimulus is presented at a level corresponding to the predicted threshold and the aid's volume control is adjusted until S just perceives the signal.

语音的舒适响度:信噪比和指令的影响。
研究了+20 ~ -10 db的信噪比对有或无背景自助餐厅噪声的连接语篇响度水平的影响,其中一组指令采样最舒适响度水平(MCLL),另一组指令采样CLL上限。正常年轻人(N:16)在安静或20至0 db S/N下的指令组没有显着差异,但mn MCLL在-10 db时低约5 db。老年助听器佩戴者(N:10, mn: 77岁)对两组指令的信噪比差异均小于5 db。没有数据表明语音CLL准确地预测了最佳助听器增益,而文献表明,有时在MCLL上经常无法获得所需的最大可理解度。我们质疑语音的MCLL是否证明了其测量的合理性。讨论了在助听器评估中调节增益的舒适水平方法和一种可能更可取的阈值水平方法,其中测试刺激的水平与预测阈值相对应,助听器的音量控制被调整,直到S刚好感知到信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信