Vol 10 No 1 (1979)
Article
How to Cite
M, M. (1). Standardisation of NU auditory test no.6 on an English speaking Indian population. Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, 10(1), 99. Retrieved from http://203.129.241.91/jaiish/index.php/aiish/article/view/690
Abstract
The process of commun·ication involves a sender, a transmitter and a receiver. In case of speech communication, speaker is the sender and listener i8 the receiver The lIstener is the
focus of attention in clinical audiology. A listener's ability to receive and perceive sounds are tested using pure tones noise and speech signals
References
1. Carhart R. Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch. Otolaryng. 82,
254-260 (1965). _
2. Garstecki, D.C. and Wilkins, M.K. Linguistic background and test material considerations
in assessing sentence identification ability in English and Spanish-English speaking·
adolescents. J. Amer. Aud. Soc. I, 263-268 tI976).
3. Hood, J.D. and Poole, J P. Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech
intelligibility. Audiol. 19, 434-455 (1980).
4. Kruel. E.J., Bell, D.W. and Nixon, J.C. Factors affecting speech discrimination test
difficulty. J. Speech Hear. Res. 12,218-2S7 (1969).
5. Lewis, N. Word Power Made Easy. DJuble Day and Co. Inc.(1978).
6. Nikam, S. Perception of time-compres,ed English eN ~ monosyllables by non-native
speakers. Unpub. Doctoral Dissertation. Michigan State University (1974).
7. Owens E. Intelligibility of words varying in familiarity. J. Speech Hear. Res. 4. 113-129
(1961 ).
8. Oyer, H.J. and Doudna, M. Word familiarity as a factor in testing discrimination of h·ard,
of hearing subjects. Arch. Otolaryng. 72, 351-355 (1960).
9. Rintelmann, W.F, Schumaier, D.R. and Burchfield, S.B. Influence of test form on speeclf
discrimination scores in normal listeners on NU Auditory Test No.6, in, Rintelmann
W.F. and Associates: Six experiments on speech discrimination utilizing CNC mODOsyllables
(Northwestern University Auditory Test No.6), J. Aud. Res. Suppl. 2, (1974).
10. Rintelmann, W.F. Schumaier, D.R. and Jetty, A J. List equival~ncy. and reliability for
normal listeners on NU Auditory Test No.6. Comparison with data from original
talker, in, Rintelmann, W.F. and Associates: Six experiments on speech discrimination
utilizing CNC monosyllables (Northwestern University ~~uditoryTest No.6), J.Aud Res
Suppl. 2 (1974).
11. Rosenzweig, M.R. and Postman, L. Intelligibilty as a function of frequency of usage.
J. Exp. Psy. 54, 412-422 (1957).
12. Sapon, S.M. and Carroll, J B. DisCI iminati ve perception of speech sounds as a function
of native language. Gen. Lin.~ 3, 62-72 (1957).
13. Savin, H.B. Word frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech. J. Acoust. Soc.
Amer. 35 (1963) 200-206.
14. Schultz, H.B. Word frequency influences in speech discrimination J. Speech Hear. Res.
7, 395-400 (1964).
15. Schumaier, D.R., Penley, E.D. and Rintelmann, W.F. Effects of listener dialect OD speech
discrimination, in, Rintelmann, W. F. and Associates : Six experiments on speech
discrinlination utilizing CNC monosyllables (Northwestern University Auditory Test
No.6) J. Aud. Res Supp!. 2(1976).
16. Singh, S. Cross-language study of perc~ptual confusion of plosives in two conditions of
distortion. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 40, 635-656 (1966).
17. Singh, S and Black, J. W. Study of 26 intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized
by four language groups. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 39, 372-387 (1966).
18 •. Sood, S.K. Perception of time-compressed CNC nlonosyllables by Don-native speakers of
English. Unpub. Master's Dissertation. University of Mysore, 19,81~
19. Tillman, T. W. and Carhart, R. An expanded' test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC
monosyllabic words (Northwestern University Auditory Test No.6)., Technical Report,
SAM-TR-66-55, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Aerospace Medical Division,
(AFSC), Brooks Air Force Base, Texas (] 966).
20.;;' \\leinreic~, U. Languages in Contact, New York, Linguistic Circle of New York, 1954.
254-260 (1965). _
2. Garstecki, D.C. and Wilkins, M.K. Linguistic background and test material considerations
in assessing sentence identification ability in English and Spanish-English speaking·
adolescents. J. Amer. Aud. Soc. I, 263-268 tI976).
3. Hood, J.D. and Poole, J P. Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech
intelligibility. Audiol. 19, 434-455 (1980).
4. Kruel. E.J., Bell, D.W. and Nixon, J.C. Factors affecting speech discrimination test
difficulty. J. Speech Hear. Res. 12,218-2S7 (1969).
5. Lewis, N. Word Power Made Easy. DJuble Day and Co. Inc.(1978).
6. Nikam, S. Perception of time-compres,ed English eN ~ monosyllables by non-native
speakers. Unpub. Doctoral Dissertation. Michigan State University (1974).
7. Owens E. Intelligibility of words varying in familiarity. J. Speech Hear. Res. 4. 113-129
(1961 ).
8. Oyer, H.J. and Doudna, M. Word familiarity as a factor in testing discrimination of h·ard,
of hearing subjects. Arch. Otolaryng. 72, 351-355 (1960).
9. Rintelmann, W.F, Schumaier, D.R. and Burchfield, S.B. Influence of test form on speeclf
discrimination scores in normal listeners on NU Auditory Test No.6, in, Rintelmann
W.F. and Associates: Six experiments on speech discrimination utilizing CNC mODOsyllables
(Northwestern University Auditory Test No.6), J. Aud. Res. Suppl. 2, (1974).
10. Rintelmann, W.F. Schumaier, D.R. and Jetty, A J. List equival~ncy. and reliability for
normal listeners on NU Auditory Test No.6. Comparison with data from original
talker, in, Rintelmann, W.F. and Associates: Six experiments on speech discrimination
utilizing CNC monosyllables (Northwestern University ~~uditoryTest No.6), J.Aud Res
Suppl. 2 (1974).
11. Rosenzweig, M.R. and Postman, L. Intelligibilty as a function of frequency of usage.
J. Exp. Psy. 54, 412-422 (1957).
12. Sapon, S.M. and Carroll, J B. DisCI iminati ve perception of speech sounds as a function
of native language. Gen. Lin.~ 3, 62-72 (1957).
13. Savin, H.B. Word frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech. J. Acoust. Soc.
Amer. 35 (1963) 200-206.
14. Schultz, H.B. Word frequency influences in speech discrimination J. Speech Hear. Res.
7, 395-400 (1964).
15. Schumaier, D.R., Penley, E.D. and Rintelmann, W.F. Effects of listener dialect OD speech
discrimination, in, Rintelmann, W. F. and Associates : Six experiments on speech
discrinlination utilizing CNC monosyllables (Northwestern University Auditory Test
No.6) J. Aud. Res Supp!. 2(1976).
16. Singh, S. Cross-language study of perc~ptual confusion of plosives in two conditions of
distortion. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 40, 635-656 (1966).
17. Singh, S and Black, J. W. Study of 26 intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized
by four language groups. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 39, 372-387 (1966).
18 •. Sood, S.K. Perception of time-compressed CNC nlonosyllables by Don-native speakers of
English. Unpub. Master's Dissertation. University of Mysore, 19,81~
19. Tillman, T. W. and Carhart, R. An expanded' test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC
monosyllabic words (Northwestern University Auditory Test No.6)., Technical Report,
SAM-TR-66-55, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Aerospace Medical Division,
(AFSC), Brooks Air Force Base, Texas (] 966).
20.;;' \\leinreic~, U. Languages in Contact, New York, Linguistic Circle of New York, 1954.