Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 305-321

  Van Esch, Thamar E M ^a   Kollmeier, Birger ^b   Vormann, Matthias ^b   Lyzenga, Johannes ^c   Houtgast, Tammo ^c   Hällgren, Mathias ^d   Larsby, Birgitta ^d   Athalye, Sheetal P ^e   Lutman, Mark E ^e   Dreschler, Wouter A ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Hoerzentrum Oldenburg GmbH   (Germany)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audiological diagnosis; Auditory profile; Clinical tests; Hearing impaired; International comparisons; Multi centre study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CASE CONTROL STUDY; COGNITION; DISABILITY; EUROPE; EVALUATION; HEARING; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NOISE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME; TIME PERCEPTION; VERY ELDERLY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COGNITION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; EUROPE; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; TIME FACTORS; TIME PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84876130332     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.759665     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. ISO 389-1. 1998. Acoustics-reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 1: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and supra-aural earphones. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
2. ISO 16832. 2006. Acoustics-Loudness scaling by means of categories. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
3. Athalye S.P. 2010. Factors affecting speech recognition in noise and hearing loss in adults with a wide variety of auditory capabilities. PhD thesis, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton, UK.
4. Arlinger S., Billermark E., Oberg M., Lunner T. & Hellgren J. 1998. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 27 (1), 51-61. (Pubitemid 28064111)
5. Baddeley A., Logi R., Nimmo-Smith I. & Brereton N. 1985. Components of fl uent reading. J Mem Lang, 24, 119-131.
6. Bench J., Kowal A. & Bamford J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108-112. (Pubitemid 10224351)
7. Blandy S. & Lutman M. 2005. Hearing threshold levels and speech recognition in noise in 7-year-olds. Int J Audiol, 44, 435-443. (Pubitemid 41191808)
8. Brand T. & Hohmann V. 2001. Effect of hearing loss, centre frequency, and bandwidth on the shape of loudness functions in categorical loudness scaling. Audiology, 40, 2, 92-1033.
9. Brand T. & Hohmann H. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1597-1604.
10. Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Effi cient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801-2810. (Pubitemid 34760267)
11. Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108-2120. (Pubitemid 24311638)
12. Cattermole C. 2003. Comparison of speech recognition in noise with sound fi eld and earphone presentation. MSc dissertation, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton, UK.
13. De Laat J.A.P.M. & Plomp R. 1983. The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. In: R. Klinke & R. Hartman (eds.) Hearing-Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 359-363.
14. Dreschler W.A., van Esch T.E., Lyzenga J., Larsby B., Vliegen J. et al. 2005. D-2-1, Implementation of a preliminary test set for auditory impairments. FP6-004171 HEARCOM: Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
15. Dreschler W.A. & Leeuw A.R. 1990. Speech reception in reverberation related to temporal resolution. J Speech Hear Res, 33, 181-187. (Pubitemid 20104979)
16. Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artifi cial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology, 40, 148-157 (Pubitemid 32674146)
17. Dreschler W.A. & Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1261-1270. (Pubitemid 16233333)
18. Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1983. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 652-662. (Pubitemid 13131034)
19. Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fl uctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing . J Acoust Soc Am, 88 (4), 1725-1736.
20. Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99. (Pubitemid 38295489)
21. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2003. Benefi ts from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77-S85. (Pubitemid 41626013)
22. George E.L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearingimpaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295-2311. (Pubitemid 44536154)
23. George E.L., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2007. Auditory and non-auditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362-2375. (Pubitemid 46553051)
24. Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C. 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol (Suppl ), 32, 1-25.
25. Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2010. The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: The role of supra-threshold defi cits. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 3073-3084.
26. Grantham D.W., Hornsby B.W. & Erpenbeck E.A. 2003. Auditory spatial resolution in horizontal, vertical, and diagonal planes. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1009-1022. (Pubitemid 36959498)
27. Hafter E.R., Saberi K., Jensen E.R. & Briolle F. 1992. Localization in an echoic environment. Adv Biosci, 83, 555-561.
28. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79-87. (Pubitemid 12071211)
29. Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S 2006 A Swedish version of the hearing in noise Ttest (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol 45 227-237.
30. H ä llgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2001. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearingimpaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 357-370 (Pubitemid 33040927)
31. Hausler R., Colburn S. & Marr E. 1983. Sound localization in subjects with impaired hearing. Spatial-discrimination and interaural-discrimination tests. Acta Otolaryngol (Suppl), 400, 1-62.
32. 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)
33. Koopman J., Houben R., Dreschler W. & Verschuure J. 2006. Development of a speech in noise test (Matrix). 8th EFAS Congress, 10th DGA Congress, 6-9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
34. Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S. & Festen J.M. 1998. The self-reported handicapping effect of hearing disabilities. Audiology, 37, 302-312. (Pubitemid 28461335)
35. Landis J.R. & Koch G.G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
36. Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1998. A method for evaluating temporal, spectral, and combined temporal-spectral resolution of hearing. Scand Audiol, 27 (1), 3-12. (Pubitemid 28064105)
37. Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1999. Auditory temporal and spectral resolution in normal and impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 198-210.
38. Larsby B., Hallgren M., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2005. Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol , 44, 131-143. (Pubitemid 40694909)
39. Middlebrooks J.C. 1999a. Individual differences in external-ear transfer functions reduced by scaling in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1480-1492.
40. Middlebrooks J.C. 1999b. Virtual localization improved by scaling nonindividualized external-ear transfer functions in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1493-1510.
41. Mills A.W. 1958. On the minimum audible angle. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 237-246.
42. Moore B.C. 2008. The choice of compression speed in hearing AIDS: Theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif, 12, 103-112. (Pubitemid 351871959)
43. Natasha: Network and Tools for the Assessment of Speech/Language and Hearing Ability, European project, http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/andyf/natasha
44. Noble W., Ter-Horst K. & Byrne D. 1995. Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localization. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 129-140.
45. Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43, 100-114. (Pubitemid 38295490)
46. 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, 1197-1212. (Pubitemid 32215925)
47. Patterson R.D., Nimmo-Smith I., Weber D.L. & Milroy R. 1982. The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 1788-1803. (Pubitemid 13186518)
48. Peters R.W., Moore B.C. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577-587. (Pubitemid 28042432)
49. Ringdahl A., Eriksson-Mangold M. & Andersson G. 1998. Psychometric evaluation of the Gothenburg profi le for measurement of experienced hearing disability and handicap: Applications with new hearingaid candidates and experienced hearing-aid users. Br J Audiol, 32, 375-385. (Pubitemid 29050665)
50. Schulte M., Wagener K.C., Vormann M., Dillier N. & B ü chler M. 2007. D-7-4, Report tests for listening effort. FP6-004171 HEARCOM: Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
51. Schwarz G. 1978. Estimating dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
52. Silzle A. 2007. Generation of quality taxonomies for auditory virtual environments by means of systematic expert survey. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universit ä t Bochum, Germany.
53. Tervaniemi M. & Hugdahl K. 2003. Lateralization of auditory-cortex functions . Brain Res Rev, 43, 231-246. (Pubitemid 37415115)
54. Van Esch T.E. & Dreschler W.A. 2011. Measuring spectral and temporal resolution simultaneously: A comparison between two tests. Int J Audio l, 50, 477-490.
55. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence materials for effi cient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671-1684. (Pubitemid 30141708)
56. Versfeld N.J. & Dreschler W.A. 2002. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 401-408. (Pubitemid 34093334)
57. Vlaming M.S., Kollmeier B., Dreschler W.A., Martin R., Wouters J. et al. 2011. HearCom: Hearing in the communication society. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 97, 175-192.
58. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test, part I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 4-15.
59. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 44-56.
60. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 86-95.
61. Wagener K.C. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Infl uence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144-156. (Pubitemid 40694910)
62. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006a. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fl uctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol, 45, 26-33. (Pubitemid 41780310)
63. Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006b. International cross-validation of sentence intelligibility tests. 8th EFAS Congress 10th DGA Congress, 6-9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
64. Wagener K.C., Vliegen J., Lutman M.E. & Lyzenga J. 2006c. D-1-3, protocol for implementation of communication tests in different languages. FP6-004171 HEARCOM Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
65. Zekveld A.A., George E.L., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2007. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 5 0, 5 76-5 84. (Pubitemid 350058584)