ライフサイエンスコーパス: intelligibility

1 h equivalent acoustic complexity but varying intelligibility.

2 oss and severe impairment of speech-in-noise intelligibility.

3 less spectrotemporal detail thereby reducing intelligibility.

4 tic feature processing tracked reliably with intelligibility.

5 with audio-only speech that was matched for intelligibility.

6 of noise-vocoded speech, irrespective of its intelligibility.

7 s, which aids in lip reading, yet not speech intelligibility.

8 by background noise, despite reduced speech intelligibility.

9 ti-speaker context and is further related to intelligibility.

10 effort as it relates to multi-talker speech intelligibility.

11 r speech as an 'easy' strategy for improving intelligibility.

12 asures of expressive vocabulary, syntax, and intelligibility.

13 sed by acoustic parameters related to speech intelligibility.

14 uency bands, effectively manipulating speech intelligibility.

15 and before being explicitly informed of its intelligibility.

16 lative importance of the various factors for intelligibility.

17 8% of the variability in multi-talker speech intelligibility.

18 less so in SSN, and (d) age per se impaired intelligibility.

19 h is an important cue contributing to speech intelligibility.

20 at have been found to be critical for speech intelligibility.

21 sking, a property that contributes to speech intelligibility.

22 n of approaches which seek everyday forms of intelligibility.

23 rimination ability is correlated with speech intelligibility.

24 ng was shown to untrained measures of speech intelligibility (11/13 articles), cognition (1/1 article

25 [3, 4], and this entrainment increases with intelligibility [5].

26 nd clear speech-a technique known to enhance intelligibility-across three levels of reverberation.

27 However, no significant intelligibility advantage was observed for musicians ove

28 and they align with other research reporting intelligibility advantages for speech produced by famili

29 ation level-dependent signal correlated with intelligibility along the superior and middle temporal g

30 signals can lead to an improvement in target intelligibility, an effect known as spatial release from

31 Both speech intelligibility and acceptable noise level (ANL) were as

32 We investigate how intelligibility and acoustical structure affect acoustic

33 eriodic cues of TFS are essential for speech intelligibility and are encoded in auditory neurons by p

34 -0.032, OR 1.08 [1.00-1.17]), worse language intelligibility and fluency (beta -0.032, OR 1.10 [1.02-

35 Despite its intelligibility and intuitiveness, the traditional seque

36 ontal operculum in response to poorer speech intelligibility and response errors.

37 local speech rate irregular while preserving intelligibility and the envelope fluctuations of the aco

38 ere was also a positive relationship between intelligibility and the tracking of the perceived speech

39 sounds into words emerges with better speech intelligibility, and most strongly at the later (~400 ms

40 rate of decline in speaking rate and speech intelligibility as a function of disease onset site, sex

41 that (a) cochlear gain loss was unrelated to intelligibility, (b) residual cochlear compression was r

42 hereas the ENV cues are important for speech intelligibility, binaural TFS cues are critical for perc

43 itory cortex, bilaterally, were sensitive to intelligibility but also showed a differential response

44 We compare speech that is matched for intelligibility but differs in putative control demands,

45 0 manipulations resulted in small changes in intelligibility but no difference in free recall or subj

46 ty to sound motion is not affected by speech intelligibility, but shows a clear difference for origin

47 In summary, all factors affected intelligibility, but their relative importance varied ac

48 EHFs; 8 to 20 kHz) that may influence speech intelligibility, but whether that information is used in

49 s on a digit recognition task, improving the intelligibility by 65% over the baseline method which us

50 of noise-vocoding channels required for 50% intelligibility by each participant.

51 cordings, we study neural measures of speech intelligibility by manipulating intelligibility while ke

52 s addressing this question vary the level of intelligibility by manipulating the acoustic waveform, b

53 Perceptual phase entrainment improves speech intelligibility by phase-locking the brain's high-excita

54 Speech intelligibility can vary dramatically between individual

55 hreshold, that determines the improvement in intelligibility caused by any given improvement in signa

56 ometric function, that is, the rate at which intelligibility changes with level, been considered.

57 er-based auditory training to improve speech intelligibility, cognition and communication abilities i

58 Gains in speech intelligibility could be predicted from gameplay accurac

59 ulation Index was used to predict the speech intelligibility curve using a transfer function for CID

60 , the model is applied to predict the speech intelligibility data measured by Marrone et al.

61 Intelligibility decreased linearly as the amount of repl

62 ti-dimensional approaches for testing speech intelligibility deficits in listeners with normal-hearin

63 d to contribute to speech discrimination and intelligibility deficits in people with normal audiologi

64 thm outside the natural range reduces speech intelligibility, demonstrating a perceptual tuning to th

65 t clear whether activity reflected effort or intelligibility differences.

66 e modulated by acoustic landmarks and speech intelligibility (Doelling et al., 2014; Zoefel and VanRu

67 o modern perceptually based models of speech intelligibility (e.g., that depend on modulation filter

68 er se was affected: face recognition, speech intelligibility, emotion recognition, and musical abilit

69 lts highlight that STN-DBS may handle speech intelligibility even in the long-term.

70 gh the VGHA has been shown to enhance speech intelligibility for fixed-location, frontal targets, it

71 In those cases, speech intelligibility for target speech is typically higher th

72 ficult to cleanly disentangle the effects of intelligibility from underlying acoustical confounds.

73 As expected, speech intelligibility improved with increasing F0 difference b

74 rs from target speech often leads to a large intelligibility improvement.

75 easured data well, even though the predicted intelligibility improvements relative to the colocated c

76 he variance of stimulation-induced change in intelligibility in a leave-one-out analysis.

77 temporal processing was strongly related to intelligibility in a R2TM and much less so in SSN, and (

78 e effect of noise on vocal effort and speech intelligibility in a restaurant setting for adults over

79 fibers for stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility in a structural connectome.

80 tcome was assessed by measuring aided speech intelligibility in a time-reversed two-talker background

81 Seeing a speaker's face enhances speech intelligibility in adverse environments.

82 at musical training leads to improved speech intelligibility in complex speech or noise backgrounds.

83 Disorder Questionnaire; Family Strain Index; Intelligibility in Context Scale; Vineland Adaptive Beha

84 to predict stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility in essential tremor patients with bilate

85 Our study demonstrated that speech intelligibility in humans relied on the periodic cues of

86 We measured speech intelligibility in multi-talker noise with and without v

87 ber of approaches have suggested that speech intelligibility in noise can be improved further by maki

88 This investigation examined whether speech intelligibility in noise can be improved using a new, bi

89 same input, known as diotic hearing, speech intelligibility in noise is improved.

90 significantly improved CI listener's speech intelligibility in noise without compromising the percei

91 younger hearing-aid users with good unaided intelligibility in quiet and with good temporal processi

92 residual cochlear compression was related to intelligibility in SSN but not in a R2TM, (c) temporal p

93 These algorithms not only increased the intelligibility in stationary non-speech noise, but also

94 city have relatively little effect on speech intelligibility in such conditions.

95 Adapting their speech to ensure intelligibility in these varied settings can impose a si

96 ple Input/Output, DSL m[i/o]) for the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and high-frequency audibilit

97 combination with the Coherence-based Speech Intelligibility Index, the model is applied to predict t

98 entrainment is strongly reduced when speech intelligibility is abolished by presenting speech/noise

99 Speech intelligibility is better predicted by nonlinguistic sen

100 It remains unclear, however, how speech intelligibility is related to the corresponding neural r

101 Most notably for the lowest intelligibility level, perceptual learning occurred only

102 r trained pairs, improved d' was seen on all intelligibility levels regardless of tDCS intervention.

103 < 120 (w/m) and 32 months based on speech intelligibility < 85% in individuals with ALS-bulbar

104 association between clinical (speaking rate/intelligibility) measures and patient-reported measures

105 py and chemotherapy, quality of life, speech intelligibility (objectively measured), age, sex, educat

106 outcome was the percentage change of speech intelligibility obtained by comparing the postoperative

107 g their remarkable fidelity, we examined the intelligibility of auditory playbacks (i.e., "sonificati

108 speech recognition model to investigate the intelligibility of CI simulations.

109 the presence of background noise, the speech intelligibility of cochlear implant listeners is more su

110 er this depended on speech quality even when intelligibility of degraded speech was matched to that o

111 a more nuanced answer to the question of the intelligibility of delusion becomes possible.

112 The question of the intelligibility of delusion has recently been addressed

113 tification, word-final /s, z/ detection, the intelligibility of sentences in noise, and subjective be

114 cts of different listening conditions on the intelligibility of speech, their analyses have often con

115 auditory cortex, and this effect depends on intelligibility of speech.

116 ds have mainly been designed to optimize the intelligibility of speech.

117 cephalography while simultaneously measuring intelligibility of spoken sentences amidst two different

118 pop-out" percept, substantially improves the intelligibility of the second degraded speech passage.

119 Evaluation of the intelligibility of the synthesized speech indicates that

120 Traditionally, the intelligibility of vocoder CI simulations is assessed th

121 recognition task in an MRI scanner where the intelligibility of words was parametrically varied.

122 ether this depended on the acoustic quality (intelligibility) of the speech.

123 difficult signal-to-noise ratios, but speech intelligibility only decreased at the hardest signal-to-

124 urally occurring asynchronies do not disrupt intelligibility or perceptual coherence.

125 old (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.2-4.4), poor speech intelligibility (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.2-4.3), maternal hi

126 ed a significant acute improvement of speech intelligibility (p < 0.005) in the postoperative assessm

127 hysics, and has been shown to predict speech intelligibility performance in a range of adverse listen

128 frequency, has been shown to predict speech intelligibility performance in a range of adverse listen

129 partially overlapped with areas sensitive to intelligibility, perhaps reflecting attentional modulati

130 ycemic event in each subject, overcoming the intelligibility problem of deep-learning methods.

131 ion to varying degrees to produce a range of intelligibility (quantified as the number of words that

132 ng included determination of SID thresholds, intelligibility ratings, and a fast syllable repetition

133 cted to make further contributions to speech intelligibility (recognition) for the average listener.

134 xertion of effort can be elevated, even when intelligibility remains high.

135 Multi-talker speech intelligibility requires successful separation of the ta

136 ably, however, voice-hearers showed stronger intelligibility responses than controls in the dorsal an

137 n of error patterns not obtainable with just intelligibility scores, consonant confusions yield uniqu

138 ves some motor components of speech although intelligibility seems to decrease after surgery.

139 More distant intelligibility-sensitive regions within the superior an

140 In the long-term, speech intelligibility stayed at the same level as preoperative

141 d in both sound motion tracking and stimulus intelligibility, suggesting that these processes could b

142 Increasing stimulus intelligibility systematically increased that bias and r

143 while participants listen and repeat (simple intelligibility task), or listen, repeat, and later reca

144 All participants performed the speech intelligibility tasks with and without an in-ear communi

145 Aided intelligibility tended to be better for younger hearing-

146 Intelligibility tended to improve by increasing amplific

147 re (0% to 100%) was obtained for each speech intelligibility test.

148 ignals led to larger values of MR and higher intelligibility than obtained with unprocessed signals.

149 r operating characteristic analysis, vocoded intelligibility threshold discriminated Alzheimer's dise

150 Mean noise-vocoded speech intelligibility threshold was significantly higher in al

151 Associations of noise-vocoded speech intelligibility threshold with general demographic, clin

152 We found that multi-talker speech intelligibility thresholds varied widely in normal heari

153 subjective quality (up to 50%) and objective intelligibility (up to 97%) of speech in noise perceptio

154 subjective quality (up to 50%) and objective intelligibility (up to 97%) of speech perception in nois

155 speed, incoming words must be buffered, and intelligibility vanishes when buffer storage and retriev

156 Although speech intelligibility varied across condition, there was no ev

157 face elastomeric respirator, the mean speech intelligibility was 58.5% (12.4%) without the in-ear dev

158 While wearing the PAPR, the mean speech intelligibility was 84.6% (9.8%) without the in-ear devi

159 e wearing the N95 mask, the mean (SD) speech intelligibility was 98.8% (1.8%) without the in-ear devi

160 compensate for their audiometric losses, and intelligibility was assessed for speech-shaped noise (SS

161 ch or as "noise-vocoded" speech in which the intelligibility was conveyed only by the speech ENVs fro

162 Speech intelligibility was measured using a word recognition ta

163 Relative intelligibility was not well accounted for on the basis

164 pattern of results was maintained even when intelligibility was perfect.

165 The level at which maximal intelligibility was predicted was used as presentation l

166 When intelligibility was restored with the insertion of silen

167 Speech intelligibility was stable or increasing for 5 patients

168 Speech intelligibility was then tested for normal-hearing liste

169 Whereas speech intelligibility was unchanged after WM training, subject

170 inative for stimulation-induced worsening of intelligibility were mainly connected to the ipsilateral

171 es of speech intelligibility by manipulating intelligibility while keeping the acoustics strictly unc

172 ted with a significant improvement in speech intelligibility while wearing the half-face elastomeric

173 the algorithm significantly enhances speech intelligibility with the selected sparsity constraints.

174 , CND is a prime candidate: it should worsen intelligibility without affecting thresholds and has bee