The French digit triplet test: A hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 378-387

  Jansen, Sofie ^a   Luts, Heleen ^a   Wagener, Kirsten Carola ^b   Frachet, Bruno ^b,c   Wouters, Jan ^a  

^a KU LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Hörzentrum Oldenburg ^*  (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 13   (France)

Author keywords

Home telephone use; Optimization; Self screening; Speech intelligibility; Speech in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LANGUAGE; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEPHONE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TELEPHONE;

EID: 77951004266     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992020903431272     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bosman A.J. and Smoorenburg G.F. 1995. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology, 34, 260-284.
2. Gatehouse S. and Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99. (Pubitemid 38295489)
3. Gordon-Salant S., Lantz J. and Fitzgibbons P. 1994. Age effects on measures of hearing disability. Ear Hear, 15, 262-265. (Pubitemid 24173829)
4. Hallberg L.R-M. 1998. Evaluation of a Swedish version of the hearing disabilities and handicaps scale, based on a clinical sample of 101 men with noise-induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol, 27, 21-29.
5. Kollmeier B. & Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2412-2421. (Pubitemid 27441394)
6. Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S. & Festen J.M. 1998. The self-reported handicapping effect of hearing disabilities. Audiology, 37, 302-312. (Pubitemid 28461335)
7. Luts H., Boon E., Wable J. & Wouters J. 2008. FIST: A French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 47, 373-374. (Pubitemid 351998872)
8. Nondahl D.M., Cruickshanks K.J., Wiley T.L., Tweed T.S., Klein R. et al. 1998. Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Audiology, 37, 295-301. (Pubitemid 28461334)
9. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979a. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333-1342.
10. Plomp R. and Mimpen A.M. 1979b. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43-52. (Pubitemid 9111887)
11. Popelka M.M., Cruickshanks K.J., Wiley T.L., Tweed T.S., Klein B.E.K. et al. 1998. Low prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults with hearing loss: The epidemiology of hearing loss study. J Am Geriatr Soc, 46, 1075-1078. (Pubitemid 28415594)
12. Smits C. & Houtgast T. 2005. Results from the Dutch speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Ear Hear, 26, 89-95. (Pubitemid 40204826)
13. Smits C. & Houtgast T. 2006. Measurements and calculations on the simple up-down adaptive procedure for speech-in-noise tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 1608-1621. (Pubitemid 44370681)
14. Smits C., Kapteyn T.S. and Houtgast T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol, 43, 15-28. (Pubitemid 38160245)
15. Smits C., Kramer S.E. & Houtgast T. 2006a. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population. Ear Hear, 27, 538-549. (Pubitemid 44371248)
16. Smits C., Merkus P. & Houtgast T. 2006b. How we do it: The Dutch functional hearing-screening tests by telephone and internet. Clin Otolaryngol, 31, 436-455. (Pubitemid 44511167)
17. Smoorenburg G.F. 1992. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421-437.
18. Trumble S.C. & Piterman L. 1992. Hearing loss in the elderly. A survey in general practice. Med J Aust, 157, 400-404.
19. Vaillancourt V., Laroche C., Mayer C., Basque C., Nali M. et al. 2005. Adaptation of the HINT (hearing in noise test) for adult Canadian Francophone populations. Int J Audiol, 44, 358-369. (Pubitemid 41029499)
20. Van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LINT: Sentences and numbers for quantifying speech understanding in severely impaired listeners for Flanders and the Netherlands. Int J Audiol, 47, 348-355. (Pubitemid 351998880)
21. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107 (3), 1671-1684. (Pubitemid 30141708)
22. Wagener K.C., Bräcker T., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006. Evaluation des Ziffern-Tripel-Tests über Kopfhörer und Telefon. 9. DGA Jahrestagung. Köln.
23. Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17. (Pubitemid 37372682)