Review Article

Speech Intelligibility Index: A Literature Review


Background and Aim: Speech is known as the most important auditory signal that humans deal with it. Noise can mask speech and prevent spoken information from reaching us. Researchers have been trying to develop indexes to assess speech intelligibility. Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) is one of these indicators and we intend to introduce its nature and applications.
Recent Findings: SII is a method that numerically demonstrates the ability to hear speech in difficult listening situations. The number 1.0 indicates that all spoken information is available, while 0.0 indicates that the person does not have access to any information. Hearing loss changes a person’s scores on this index, so we need to use corrective factors to more accurately estimate speech intelligibility. In children, the SII score is different from adults. This indicator can be used in the improvement of hearing aid fitting and more accurate adjustment of cochlear implants. The frequency importance function used to calculate SII has a unique shape in each language. Therefore, SII will also differ in different languages, depending on the nature of each language.
Conclusion: SII has emerged as a practical indicator among objective assessments of speech intelligibility. Many have tried to extend and prepare it for use in different groups. Therefore, care should be taken about the use of this index in hearing-impaired people, children, with hearing aids or cochlear implant patients, etc. Evaluation of this index in other languages can help to better adjust the hearing aid based on the characteristics of each language.

[1] Kryter KD. Validation of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;34(11):1698-702. [DOI:10.1121/1.1909096]
[2] Kryter KD. Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am. 1962;34(11):1689-97. [DOI:10.1121/1.1909094]
[3] Fletcher H, Galt RH. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am. 1950;22(2):89-151. [DOI:10.1121/1.1906605]
[4] French NR, Steinberg JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1947;19(1):90-119. [DOI:10.1121/1.1916407]
[5] Rankovic CM. Articulation index predictions for hearingimpaired listeners with and without cochlear dead regions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(6):2545-8. [DOI:10.1121/1.1476922]
[6] Rankovic CM. Factors governing speech reception benefits of adaptive linear filtering for listeners with sensorineural hearing lossa. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(2):1043-57. [DOI:10.1121/1.423106]
[7] Müsch H, Buus S. Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. I. Model structure. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(6):2896-909. [DOI:10.1121/1.1371971]
[8] Müsch H, Buus S. Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. II. Measurement and prediction of consonant-discrimination performance. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(6):2910-20. [DOI:10.1121/1.1371972]
[9] Hogan CA, Turner CW. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104(1):432-41. [DOI:10.1121/1.423247]
[10] Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. Recovery from prior stimulation: Masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(4):2084-94. [DOI:10.1121/1.1555611]
[11] Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(5):2527-38. [DOI:10.1121/1.1408946]
[12] Brungart DS. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(3):1101-9. [DOI:10.1121/1.1345696]
[13] Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. Benefit of modulated maskers for speech recognition by younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(6):2897-907. [DOI:10.1121/1.1480421]
[14] Magnusson L. Speech intelligibility index transfer functions and speech spectra for two Swedish speech recognition tests. Scand Audiol. 1996;25(1):59-67. [DOI:10.3109/01050399609047557]
[15] Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ. An SII-based approach to predict the speech intelligibility in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5):2394. [DOI:10.1121/1.4780630]
[16] American National Standards Institute. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index (ANSI S3.5-1997). New York, NY: Author. 1997.
[17] Kates JM, Arehart KH. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117(4):2224-37. [DOI:10.1121/1.1862575]
[18] Purdy SC, Pavlovic CV. Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners. Audiology. 1992;31(5):254-71. [DOI:10.3109/00206099209072914]
[19] Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Gornbein JA. Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear Hear. 1997;18(4):294-306. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199708000-00004]
[20] Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD. Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1995;38(5):1157-67. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3805.1157]
[21] Sauert B, Vary P. Near end listening enhancement optimized with respect to speech intelligibility index and audio power limitations. Paper presented at: 2010 18th European Signal Processing Conference. 23-27 August 2010; Aalborg, Denmark.
[22] Leal C, Marriage J, Vickers D. Evaluating recommended audiometric changes to candidacy using the speech intelligibility index. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(Suppl 1):8-12. [DOI:10.1080/14670100.2016.1151635]
[23] Davis JR, Johnson R, Stepanek J. Fundamentals of aerospace medicine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
[24] Hornsby BWY. The speech intelligibility index: What is it and what’s it good for? Hear J. 2004;57(10):10-7. [DOI:10.1097/00025572-200410000-00003]
[25] Pavlovic Ch. The speech intelligibility index standard and its relationship to the articulation index, and the speech transmission index. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(5):3326. [DOI:10.1121/1.4786372]
[26] Leopold SY. Factors influencing the prediction of speech intelligibility [PhD. dissertation]. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University; 2016.
[27] Kuo MW. Frequency importance functions for words and sentences in Mandarin Chinese: Implications for hearing aid prescriptions in tonal languages [PhD. dissertation]. Penrith NSW: University of Western Sydney; 2013.
[28] Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, Gilmore Ch. Frequencyimportance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 Word test. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993;36(4):799-807. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3604.799]
[29] Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 Word lists. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1991;34(2):427-38. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.3402.427]
[30] Keidser G. Articulation index transfer functions for ‘Dantale’ (200 monosyllabic words). Scand Audiol. 1994;23(1):75-7. [DOI:10.3109/01050399409047488]
[31] Steeneken HJM, Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980;67(1):318-26. [DOI:10.1121/1.384464]
[32] Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA. Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test. Ear Hear. 2002;23(5):385-98. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200210000-00001]
[33] Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ. A speech intelligibility indexbased approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;117(4):2181-92. [DOI:10.1121/1.1861713]
[34] Rhebergen KS, Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(6):3988-97. [DOI:10.1121/1.2358008]
[35] Kates JM. The short-time articulation index. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 1987;24(4):271-6.
[36] Versfeld NJ, Dreschler WA. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;111(1):401-8. [DOI:10.1121/1.1426376]
[37] Peters RW, Moore BC, Baer T. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(1):577-87. [DOI:10.1121/1.421128]
[38] Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA. Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(2):961-8. [DOI:10.1121/1.1531983]
[39] Miller GA, Licklider JCR. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1950;22(2):167-73. [DOI:10.1121/1.1906584]
[40] Miller GA. The masking of speech. Psychol Bull. 1947;44(2):105-29. [DOI:10.1037/h0055960]
[41] Licklider JCR, Guttman N. Masking of speech by linespectrum interference. J Acoust Soc Am. 1957;29(2):287-95. [DOI:10.1121/1.1908860]
[42] Gustafsson HÅ, Arlinger SD. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(1):518-29. [DOI:10.1121/1.408346]
[43] Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88(4):1725-36. [DOI:10.1121/1.400247]
[44] Festen JM. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;94(3):1295-300. [DOI:10.1121/1.408156]
[45] Festen JM. Speech-reception threshold in a fluctuating background sound and its possible relation to temporal auditory resolution. In: Schouten MEH, editor. The Psychophysics of Speech Perception. NATO ASI Series (Series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences). Vol. 39. Dordrecht: Springer; 1987. p. 461-6. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-009-3629-4_37]
[46] Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am. 1983;74(3):739-43. [DOI:10.1121/1.389859]
[47] de Laat JAPM, Plomp R. The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. In: Klinke R, Hartmann R, editors. Hearing - Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 1983. p. 359-63. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-69257-4_52]
[48] Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY. The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41(3):549-63. [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4103.549]
[49] Howard-Jones PA, Rosen S. The perception of speech in fluctuating noise. Acta Acustica United with Acustica. 1993;78(5):258-72.
[50] Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ. Basilar-membrane nonlinearity and the growth of forward masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(3):1598-608. [DOI:10.1121/1.421294]
[51] Oxenham AJ, Rosengard PS, Braida LD. Perceptual consequences of normal and abnormal peripheral compression: Potential links between psychoacoustics and speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(5):2421. [DOI:10.1121/1.4781297]
[52] Oxenham AJ, Plack CJ. A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;101(6):3666-75. [DOI:10.1121/1.418327]
[53] Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985;77(3):1069-77. [DOI:10.1121/1.392224]
[54] Payton KL, Braida LD. A method to determine the speech transmission index from speech waveforms. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(6):3637-48. [DOI:10.1121/1.428216]
[55] Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners’ performance on the connected speech test. Ear Hear. 2003;24(1):71-88. [DOI:10.1097/01.AUD.0000052748.94309.8A]
[56] Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986;80(1):50-7. [DOI:10.1121/1.394082]
[57] Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gray GA. Agerelated changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;8(3):150-62.
[58] Studebaker GA, Gray GA, Branch WE. Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(7):355-70. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/12370812 [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1748508]
[59] Ching TYC, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(2):1128-40. [DOI:10.1121/1.421224]
[60] Ludvigsen C. Prediction of speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and cochlearly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1987;82(4):1162-71. [DOI:10.1121/1.395252]
[61] Pavlovic CV. Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;75(4):1253-8. [DOI:10.1121/1.390731]
[62] Hornsby BWY, Ricketts TA. The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. II. Sloping hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1752-63. [DOI:10.1121/1.2161432]
[63] Hornsby BWY, Ricketts TA. The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(3):1706-17. [DOI:10.1121/1.1553458]
[64] Magnusson L, Karlsson M, Leijon A. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification. Ear Hear. 2001;22(1):46-57.
[65] Crain TR, Van Tasell DJ. Effect of peak clipping on speech recognition threshold. Ear Hear. 1994;15(6):443-53. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199412000-00005]
[66] Scollie SD. Children’s speech recognition scores: The speech intelligibility index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear. 2008;29(4):543-56. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181734a02]
[67] Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Novel-word learning in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2004;25(1):47-56. [DOI:10.1097/01.AUD.0000111258.98509.DE]
[68] Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear. 2002;23(4):316-24. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200208000-00007]
[69] Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s / in normal-and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(4):2183-90. [DOI:10.1121/1.1400757]
[70] Stelmachowicz PG, Hoover BM, Lewis DE, Kortekaas RWL, Pittman AL. The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearingimpaired children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(4):902-14. [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4304.902]
[71] Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(6):1389-401. [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4306.1389]
[72] Kortekaas RWL, Stelmachowicz PG. Bandwidth effects on children’s perception of the inflectional morpheme /s/: Acoustical measurements, auditory detection, and clarity rating. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(3):645-60. [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4303.645]
[73] Nábělek AK, Robinson PK. Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. J Acoust Soc Am. 1982;71(5):1242-8. [DOI:10.1121/1.387773]
[74] Jerger S, Jerger J, Abrams S. Speech audiometry in the young child. Ear Hear. 1983;4(1):56-66. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-198301000-00010]
[75] Gravel JS, Fausel N, Liskow Ch, Chobot J. Children’s speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dualmicrophone hearing aid technology. Ear Hear. 1999;20(1):1-11. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199902000-00001]
[76] Elliott LL. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;66(3):651-3. [DOI:10.1121/1.383691]
[77] Feder K, Michaud D, Ramage-Morin P, McNamee J, Beauregard Y. Prevalence of hearing loss among Canadians aged 20 to 79: Audiometric results from the 2012/2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep. 2015;26(7):18-25.
[78] American Academy of Audiology Task Force. Audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiol Today. 2006;18(5):32-6.
[79] Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values: How accurate are they? Hear J. 2003;56(7):26,28,32,34. [DOI:10.1097/01.HJ.0000292552.60032.8b]
[80] Aarts NL, Caffee CS. Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: Accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol. 2005;44(5):293-301. [DOI:10.1080/14992020500057830]
[81] Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. Differences in word and phoneme recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first-fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 using real-ear measures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018;29(08):706-21. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17005]
[82] Leavitt RJ, Flexer C. The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss [Internet]. 2012 [Updated 2012 December 1]. Available from:
[83] Kochkin S, Beck DL, Christensen LA, Compton-Conley C, Fligor BJ, Kricos PB, et al. MarkeTrak VIII: The impact of the hearing healthcare professional on hearing aid user success [Internet]. 2010 [Updated 2010 April 1]. Available from:
[84] Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: Comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(10):768-78. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.23.10.3]
[85] Hickson L, Meyer C, Lovelock K, Lampert M, Khan A. Factors associated with success with hearing aids in older adults. Int J Audiol. 2014;53(Suppl 1):S18-27. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.860488]
[86] Van Eeckhoutte M, Folkeard P, Glista D, Scollie S. Speech recognition, loudness, and preference with extended bandwidth hearing aids for adult hearing aid users. Int J Audiol. 2020;59(10):780-91. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2020.1750718]
[87] McCreery RW, Brennan M, Walker EA, Spratford M. Perceptual implications of level- and frequency-specific deviations from hearing aid prescription in children. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(09):861-75. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17014]
[88] Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. Real-ear measurement and its impact on aided audibility and patient loyalty [Internet]. 2017 [Updated 2017 September 22]. Available from:
[89] Ng JHY, Loke AY. Determinants of hearing-aid adoption and use among the elderly: A systematic review. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(5):291-300. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2014.966922]
[90] Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol. 2010;49(3):216-27. [DOI:10.3109/14992020903296746]
[91] Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NALNL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(1):37-51. [DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1741117]
[92] Sininger YS, Grimes A, Christensen E. Auditory development in early amplified children: Factors influencing auditory-based communication outcomes in children with hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2010;31(2):166-85. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c8e7b6]
[93] McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Bentler R, Holte L, Roush P, et al. Longitudinal predictors of aided speech audibility in infants and children. Ear Hear. 2015;36(Suppl 1):24S-37. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000211]
[94] McCreery RW, Bentler RA, Roush PA. Characteristics of hearing aid fittings in infants and young children. Ear Hear. 2013;34(6):701-10. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828f1033]
[95] Baker S, Jenstad L. Matching real-ear targets for adult hearing aid fittings: NAL-NL1 and DSL v5.0 prescriptive formulae. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2017;41(2):227-35.
[96] Moodie ST, The Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada, Scollie SD, Bagatto MP, Keene K. Fit-to-targets for the desired sensation level version 5.0a hearing aid prescription method for children. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(3):251-8. [DOI:10.1044/2017_AJA-16-0054]
[97] Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner Ch, Potts LG, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342-60. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7]
[98] Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, Tobey EA, Peterson A, Gaggl W, et al. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear. 2004;25(4):375-87. [DOI:10.1097/01.AUD.0000134552.22205.EE]
[99] Stiles DJ, Bentler RA, McGregor KK. The speech intelligibility index and the pure-tone average as predictors of lexical ability in children fit with hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(3):764-78. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0264)]
[100] Lee S, Mendel LL, Bidelman GM. Predicting speech recognition using the speech intelligibility index and other variables for cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(5):1517-31. [DOI:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-18-0303]
[101] Chen F, Wong LLN, Hu Y. Effects of lexical tone contour on Mandarin sentence intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57(1):338-45. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0324)]
[102] Chasin M. Setting hearing aids differently for different languages. Semin Hear. 2011;32(2):182-8. [DOI:10.1055/s-0031-1277240]
[103] Chen F, Wong LLN, Wong EYW. Assessing the perceptual contributions of vowels and consonants to Mandarin sentence intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(2):EL178-84. [DOI:10.1121/1.4812820]
[104] Narne VK, Prabhu P, Thuvassery P, Ramachandran R, Kumar A, Raveendran R, et al. Frequency importance function for monosyllables in Malayalam. Hear Balance Commun. 2016;14(4):201-6. [DOI:10.1080/21695717.2016.1215874]
[105] Chen J, Huang Q, Wu X. Frequency importance function of the speech intelligibility index for Mandarin Chinese. Speech Commun. 2016;83:94-103. [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2016.07.009]
[106] Jin IK, Lee J, Lee K, Kim J, Kim D, Sohn J, et al. The band-importance function for the Korean standard sentence lists for adults. J Audiol Otol. 2016;20(2):80-4. [DOI:10.7874/jao.2016.20.2.80]
[107] Bachmann AS, Wiltfang J, Hertrampf K. Development of the German speech intelligibility index for the treatment of oral cancer patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021;49(1):52-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2020.11.009]
[108] Lalain M, Ghio A, Giusti L, Robert D, Fredouille C, Woisard V. Design and development of a speech intelligibility test based on pseudowords in French: Why and how? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(7):2070-83. [DOI:10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00088]
IssueVol 31 No 3 (2022) QRcode
SectionReview Article(s)
Speech intelligibility index hearing loss children hearing aid cochlear implant language

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Taghavi SMR, Mohammadkhani G, Jalilvand H. Speech Intelligibility Index: A Literature Review. Aud Vestib Res. 2022;31(3):148-157.