  Instrumental intelligibility metrics are commonly used as an alternative to
listening tests. This paper evaluates 12 monaural intrusive intelligibility
metrics: SII, HEGP, CSII, HASPI, NCM, QSTI, STOI, ESTOI, MIKNN, SIMI, SIIB, and
$\text{sEPSM}^\text{corr}$. In addition, this paper investigates the ability of
intelligibility metrics to generalize to new types of distortions and analyzes
why the top performing metrics have high performance. The intelligibility data
were obtained from 11 listening tests described in the literature. The stimuli
included Dutch, Danish, and English speech that was distorted by additive
noise, reverberation, competing talkers, pre-processing enhancement, and
post-processing enhancement. SIIB and HASPI had the highest performance
achieving a correlation with listening test scores on average of $\rho=0.92$
and $\rho=0.89$, respectively. The high performance of SIIB may, in part, be
the result of SIIBs developers having access to all the intelligibility data
considered in the evaluation. The results show that intelligibility metrics
tend to perform poorly on data sets that were not used during their
development. By modifying the original implementations of SIIB and STOI, the
advantage of reducing statistical dependencies between input features is
demonstrated. Additionally, the paper presents a new version of SIIB called
$\text{SIIB}^\text{Gauss}$, which has similar performance to SIIB and HASPI,
but takes less time to compute by two orders of magnitude.
