Conversion of scores between Bamford, Kowal and Bench (BKB) sentences and Arthur Boothroyd (AB) words in quiet for cochlear implant patients

Cochlear Implants International

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 142-149

  Vickers, Debi ^a   Eyles, Julie ^b   Brinton, Julie ^b   Glasberg, Brian ^c   Graham, John ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b South of England Cochlear Implant Programme   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d ROYAL NATIONAL THROAT NOSE AND EAR HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

AB word; BKB sentence; Cochlear Implant; Outcome; Performance; Speech test

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 69549108865     PISSN: 14670100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cii.420     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J (1979). The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially hearing children. British Journal of Audiology 13: 108-112.
2. Boothroyd A (1968). Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43: 362-367.
3. Bosman A, Smoorenburg GF (1987). Differences in listening strategies between normal and hearing-impaired listeners. In Schouten MEH (ed.) The Psychophysics of Speech Perception. NATO ASI series D: Behavioural and Social Sciences. Martinus Nijhoff: Dordrecht No. 39: 467-472.
4. Fletcher H, Steinberg JC (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 19: 90-119.
5. Graham J, Vickers D, Eyles J, Brinton J, Al-Malky G, Aleksy W, Martin J, Henderson L, Mawman D, Robinson P, Midgeley E, Hanvey K, Twomey T, Johnson S, Vanat Z, Broxholme C, McAnallen C, Allen A, Bray M (2009). Bilateral sequential cochlear implantation in the congenitally deaf child: evidence to support the concept of a 'critical age' after wich the second ear is less likely to provide an adequate level of speech perception on its own. Cochlear Implants International. DOI: 10.1002/cii.419
6. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 61: 1337-1351.
7. McCormick B (1977). The Toy Discrimination Test: an aid for screening the hearing of children above a mental age of two years. Public Health, London 91: 67-69.
8. Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology 41: 329-335.
9. Ousey J, Shepherd S, Twomey T, Palmer AR (1989). The IHR McCormick Automated Toy Discrimination Test description and initial evaluation. British Journal of Audiology 23: 245-249.
10. Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA (2002). Audibility-Index Functions for the Connected Speech Test. Ear and Hearing 23: 385-398.
11. Studebaker GA (1985). A 'Rationalized' Arcsine Transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 28: 455-462.
12. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL (2002). Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111: 1422-1436.
13. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, on behalf of the United Kingdom Cochlear Implant Study Group (2004). Criteria of candidature for unilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults III: Prospective evaluation of an actuarial approach to defining a criterion. Ear and Hearing 25: 361-374.
14. Thornton AR, Raffin MJ (1978). Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 21(3): 507-518.