Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare listeners' subjective judgments of speech clarity via paired comparisons and category rating using stimulus conditions that varied in the relative spacing between stimulus items, producing either a wide or narrow range of performance. Subjective judgments of speech clarity were measured via paired comparisons and category rating in 12 normal-hearing (Experiment 1) and eight hearing-impaired adults (Experiment 2). Sentences processed by six band-pass filters that increased monotonically in Articulation Index (AI) estimates constituted the stimuli to be judged. Using subsets of three filters from the group of six, subjective judgments were additionally obtained for stimulus conditions in which the performance ranges were wide (large differences in AI) and narrow (small differences in AI). Speech clarity judgments obtained by paired comparisons and category rating were highly related to the AI estimates both for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. When the performance range was wide, both methods provided similar judgments for the normal-hearing subjects. For the hearing-impaired subjects, paired comparisons were more sensitive than category rating. When the performance range was narrow, paired comparisons were more sensitive than category rating in differentiating between filters for both groups of subjects. This difference was less obvious for the normal-hearing subjects when paired comparison data were converted to a scale comparable to the category ratings. Large between-subject variability was evident for the hearing-impaired subjects on the psychophysical scaling procedures, most notably for category rating. When judging the clarity among stimulus items where performance varied over a wide range, both category rating and paired comparisons provided comparable judgments for normal-hearing listeners. For conditions in which perceptual differences between stimulus items were restricted either by the choice of conditions or by the effects of sensorineural hearing loss, the method of paired comparisons was the more sensitive procedure.