Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multi-center study

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 164-173

  Jansen, Sofie ^a   Luts, Heleen ^a   Wagener, Kirsten Carola ^b   Kollmeier, Birger ^b,c   Del Rio, Matthieu ^d   Dauman, René ^d   James, Chris ^e   Fraysse, Bernard ^e   Vormès, Emilie ^f   Frachet, Bruno ^f   Wouters, Jan ^a   Van Wieringen, Astrid ^a  

^a KU LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Hörzentrum Oldenburg ^*  (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^d HÔPITAL PELLEGRIN   (France)

^e CHU PURPAN   (France)

^f UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 13   (France)

Author keywords

Digit triplets; Discriminative power; Everyday sentences; French speech tests; Matrix sentences; Speech recognition in noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BELGIUM; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NOISE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; BELGIUM; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857227244     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.633568     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brand T. & Kollmeier B., 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am , 111(6), 2801-2810. (Pubitemid 34760267)
2. Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artifcial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology , 40, 148-157. (Pubitemid 32674146)
3. Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am , 88(4), 1725-1736.
4. Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2011. Comparison of fluctuating maskers for speech recognition tests. Int J Audiol , 50(1), 2-13.
5. Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C.J., 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol , 32, 1-25.
6. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol , 11, 79-87. (Pubitemid 12071211)
7. Hagerman B. & Kinnefors C. 1995. Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol , 24, 71-77.
8. Hernvig L.H. & Olsen S.O. 2005. Learning effect when using the Danish Hagerman sentences (Dantale II) to determine speech reception threshold. Int J Audiol , 44, 509-512. (Pubitemid 41508965)
9. Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K.C., Frache B. & Wouters J. 2010. The French digit triplet test: A hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol , 49(5), 378-387.
10. Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N. & Elliott L.L. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am , 61(5), 1337-1351. (Pubitemid 8086815)
11. Laroche C., Vaillancourt V., Melanson C., Renault M., Thériault C. et al. 2006. Adaptation du HINT (hearing in noise test) pour les enfants francophones canadiens et données préliminaires sur l'effet d'âge. Revue d'orthophonie et d'audiologie , 30(2), 95-109. (Pubitemid 44083704)
12. 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)
13. Nilsson M., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am , 95(2), 1085-1099. (Pubitemid 24056373)
14. Noordhoek I.M., Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2001. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am , 109(3), 1197-1212. (Pubitemid 32215925)
15. Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol , 49(6), 444-454.
16. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology , 18, 43-52. (Pubitemid 9111887)
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(1), 421-437.
18. Theunissen M., Swanepoel D.W. & Hanekom J. 2009. Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. Int J Audiol , 48(11), 743-757.
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. Vaillancourt V., Laroche C., Mayer C., Basque C., Nali M. et al. 2008. The Canadian French Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol , 47, 383-385. (Pubitemid 351998883)
21. 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)
22. Van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. J Acoust Soc Am , 112(6), 3004-3013. (Pubitemid 37033877)
23. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T., 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for effcient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am , 107(3), 1671-1684. (Pubitemid 30141708)
24. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie , 38(2), 44-56.
25. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie , 38(3), 86-95.
26. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol , 45, 26-33. (Pubitemid 41780310)
27. Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjar R. 2003. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol , 42, 10-17. (Pubitemid 37372682)
28. Wagener K.C., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie , 38(1), 4-15.
29. Wioland F. 1972. Estimation de la fréquence des phonèmes en français parlé. Travaux de l'Institut de Phonétique de l'Universitéde Strasbourg , 4, 177-204