Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Management of Truncated Data in Speech Transmission Evaluation for Pupils in Classrooms Cover

Management of Truncated Data in Speech Transmission Evaluation for Pupils in Classrooms

Measurement Science Review
Volume 13 (2013): Issue 2 (April 2013)
By: G. Genta,  A. Astolf,  P. Bottalico,  G. Barbato and  R. Levi  
Open Access
|Apr 2013

References

  1. [1] Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103 (2684), 677-680.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. [2] Barbato, G., Farné, S., Genta, G. (2008). Management of subjective evaluations represented by ordinal scales. In 12th IMEKO TC1 & TC7 Joint Symposium on Man,Science & Measurement, 3-5 September 2008. IMEKO, 89-94.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Astolfi, A., Bottalico, P., Barbato, G. (2012). Subjective and objective speech intelligibility investigations in primary school classrooms. Journalof Acoustical Society of America, 131 (1), 247-257.10.1121/1.366206022280588
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. [4] Klein, J.P., Moeschberger, M.L. (2003). SurvivalAnalysis: Techniques for Censored and TruncatedData (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. [5] International Organization for Standardization (2003). Ergonomics-Assessment of speech communication. ISO 9921. Genève.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. [6] Houtgast, T., Steeneken, H.J.M. (1971). Evaluation of speech transmission channels by using artificial signals. Acustica, 25, 355-367.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Steeneken, H.J.M., Houtgast, T. (1980). A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 67, 318-326.10.1121/1.3844647354199
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. [8] European Committee for Standardization (2011). Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speechtransmission index. EN 60268-16. Brussels.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. [9] Sato, H., Yoshino, H., Nagatomo, M. (1998). Relationship between speech transmission index and easiness of speech perception in reverberatory fields. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 103 (5), 2999.10.1121/1.421726
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Sato, H., Morimoto, M., Sato, H., Wada, M. (2008). Relationship between listening difficulty and acoustical objective measures in reverberant sound fields. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 123 (4), 2087-2093.10.1121/1.288575018397016
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. [11] Morimoto, M., Sato, H., Kobayashi, M. (2004). Listening difficulty as a subjective measure for evaluation of speech transmission performance in public spaces. Journal of Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 116 (3), 1607-1613.10.1121/1.177527615478426
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Sato, H., Bradley, J.S., Morimoto, M. (2005). Using listening difficulty ratings of conditions for speech communication in rooms. Journal of AcousticalSociety of America, 117 (3), 1157-1167.10.1121/1.184993615807005
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Prodi, N., Visentin, C., Farnetani, A. (2010). Intelligibility, listening difficulty and listening efficiency in auralized classrooms. Journal ofAcoustical Society of America, 128 (1), 172-181.10.1121/1.343656320649212
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Prodi, N., Visentin, C., Feletti, A. (2013). On the perception of speech in primary school classrooms: Ranking of noise interference and of age influence. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 133 (1), 255-268.10.1121/1.477025923297900
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. [15] International Organization for Standardization (1991). Acoustics - The construction and calibration of speechintelligibility tests. ISO TR 4870. Genève.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Bonaventura, P., Paoloni, A., Canavesio, F., Usai, P. (1986). Development of a diagnostic intelligibility testin the Italian language. Roma: Fondazione Ugo Bordoni. (Technical Report 3C1286).
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Aurora site (last viewed February 24, 2013). http://pcfarina.eng.unipr.it/Aurora_XP/STI.htm.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. [18] International Organization for Standardization (2009). Acoustics - Measurement of room acoustic parameters- Part 1: Performance spaces. ISO 3382-1. Genève.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. [20] Hofmann, D., Linss, G. (2003). Challenges and chances of internet metrology. Measurement ScienceReview, 3 (1), 1-17.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. [21] NIST/SEMATECH. e-Handbook of StatisticalMethods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, February 2013.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. [22] Bork, I. (2000). A comparison of room simulation software: The 2nd round robin on room acoustic computer simulation. Acustica, 86, 943-956.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. [23] Johnson, L.G. (1964). Theory and Technique ofVariation Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. [24] Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2008). Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to theexpression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). JCGM 100:2008. Sèvres.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msr-2013-0012 | Journal eISSN: 1335-8871
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 75 - 82
Published on: Apr 3, 2013
Published by: Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Measurement Science
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open
Keywords:
Speech intelligibility,
listening easiness,
data accumulation,
truncated data,
uncertainty
Related subjects:
Engineering,
Electrical engineering,
Control engineering, metrology and testing

© 2013 G. Genta, A. Astolf, P. Bottalico, G. Barbato, R. Levi, published by Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Measurement Science
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Previous articleVolume 13 (2013): Issue 2 (April 2013)Next article