Summary
Reviews how speech-transmission quality and intelligibility should be assessed for people with hearing loss.
Key findings
- Clause 3.1 identifies signal quality, noise, reverberation and communication-system properties as influences on intelligibility.
- Clauses 5 and 6 distinguish word-identification tests from quality and intelligibility prediction models. The report notes that several existing methods were developed or validated with normal-hearing listeners.
- Clause 6.2 calls for development and validation of a model addressing the reviewed gaps for hearing-impaired listeners.
- The Introduction (printed p. 5) identifies transmission impairments, listening effort and receive-side processing as research topics, and asks for different coupling methods and device types, including cochlear implants, to be considered. This is telecommunications guidance, used here only to identify shared-path assessment gaps.
Limits
A January 2018 review about telecommunications, not a venue trial or a current survey of prediction methods. Used as shared-path evidence for separating quality ratings from speech understanding; it supplies no Auracast result.
Read the original
www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/103200_103299/103225/01.01.01_60/tr_103225v010101p.pdf
Cited in
- How good is the sound each system delivers: bandwidth, codecs and speech understanding?Partly answered
Cite this source
ETSI Technical Committee STQ. ETSI TR 103 225 V1.1.1: Speech and multimedia Transmission Quality (STQ); Transmission quality and speech intelligibility for hearing impaired people. European Telecommunications Standards Institute. January 2018. https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/103200_103299/103225/01.01.01_60/tr_103225v010101p.pdf (accessed 13 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.