Development of the Russian matrix sentence test

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 54, Issue , 2015, Pages 35-43

  Warzybok, Anna ^a   Zokoll, Melanie ^a   Wardenga, Nina ^b   Ozimek, Edward ^c   Boboshko, Maria ^d   Kollmeier, Birger ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^c ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^d PAVLOV FIRST SAINT PETERSBURG STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Russian Federation)

^e Center of Competence HörTech GGmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Russian speech audiometry; Speech perception; speech reception threshold; speech test

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPREHENSION; HEARING; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACOUSTICS; ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPREHENSION; HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS; HEARING; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84949197698     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Beattie R.C. 1989. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord, 54, 20-32.
2. 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, 2801-2810.
3. Dietz A., Buschermöhle M., Aarnisalo A.A., Vanhanen A., Hyyrynen T. et al. 2014. The development and evaluation of the Finnish matrix sentence test for speech intelligibility assessment. Acta Otolaryngol, 134(7), 728-737.
4. Duquesnoy A.J. & Plomp R. 1983. The effect of a hearing aid on the speechreception threshold of hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 2166-2173.
5. Goshorn E.L. & Studebaker G.A. 1994. Effects of intensity on speech recognition in high-and low-frequency bands. Ear Hear, 15, 454-460.
6. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79-87.
7. Harris R.W., Nissen S.L., Pola M.G., McPherson D.L., Tavartkiladze G.A. et al. 2007. Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers. Int J Audiol, 46(1), 47-66.
8. Hawkins J.E. Jr. & Stevens S.S. 1950. The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 22(1), 6-13.
9. Hirsh I.J. & Bowman W.D. 1953. Masking of speech by bands of noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 1175-1180.
10. Hirsh I.J., Reynolds E.G. & Joseph M. 1954. The intelligibility of different speech materials. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 530-538.
11. Hochmuth S., Brand, T., Zokoll M.A., Zenker Castro F., Wardenga N. Et al. 2012. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 51, 536-544.
12. Houben R., Koopman J., Luts H., Wagener K.C., van Wieringen A. et al. 2014. Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 53, 760-763.
13. ISO 2004. Acoustics-Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment-Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones. International Standard ISO 389-8:2004. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
14. Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K.C., Kollmeier B., Del Rio M. et al. 2012. Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multicenter study. Int J Audiol, 51, 164-173.
15. Kollmeier B. 1990. Messmethodik, Modellierung und Verbesserung der Verständlichkeit von Sprache (in German). (Methodology, modeling, and improvement of speech intelligibility measurements). Habilitation, Universität of Göttingen.
16. Kollmeier B. & Wesselkamp M. 1997. Development and evaluation of a sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 1085-1099.
17. Kollmeier B., Warzybok A., Hochmuth S., Zokoll M., Uslar et al (2015). The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications and comparison across languages-a review. Accepted for publication in Int J Audiol, DOI 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971
18. Kucera H. & Monroe H.K. 1968. A comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech and German. Mathematical and Linguistics and Automatic Language Processing 4, New York: American Elsevier.
19. Kuk F., Lau C.C., Korhonen P., Crose B., Peeters H. et al. 2010. Development of the ORCA nonsense syllable test. Ear Hear, 31(6), 779-795.
20. 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.
21. Lewis M.P., Gary F.S., Charles D.F. (eds.) 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
22. Moore T. 1981. Voice communication jamming research. In: AGARD Conference Proceedings 331: Aural Communication in Aviation, Neuilly-SurSeine, France, pp. 2:1-2:6.
23. Nielsen J.B. & Dau T. 2011. The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 50, 202-208.
24. 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, 1085-1099.
25. Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 444-454.
26. Ozimek E., Kutzner D., Sek A. & Wicher A. 2009. Polish sentence tests for measuring the intelligibility of speech in interfering noise. Int J Audiol, 48, 433-443.
27. Pickett J.M. & Polack I. 1958. Prediction of speech intelligibility at high noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 955-963.
28. Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43-53.
29. Puglisi G.E., Astolfi A., Prodi N., Visentin Ch., Warzybok A. et al. 2014.
30. Construction and first evaluation of the Italian Matrix Sentence Test for the assessment of speech intelligibility in noise. To appear in the Proceedings of Forum Acusticum, Krakow, Poland.
31. Sharoff S. 2002. Meaning as use: exploitation of aligned corpora for the contrastive study of lexical semantics. Proc of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC02). Las Palmas, Spain.
32. Smits C., Kapteyn T.S. & Houtgast T. 2004. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol, 43, 15-28.
33. Soli S.D. & Wong L.L.N. 2008. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 356-361.
34. Studebaker G.A., Shernecoe R.L., McDaniel D.M. & Gwaltney C.A. 1999. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 105(4), 2431-2443.
35. Tambovtsev Y. 2001. Kompendium osnovnyh statisticheskih harakteristik funktsionirovanija soglasnyh fonem v zvukovoj tsepochke anglijskogo, nemetskogo, frantsuzskogo i drugih indoevropejskih jazykov (in Russian). (Compendium of the basic characteristics of functioning of consonants in the speech chain of English, German, French and other Indo-European Languages). Novosibirsk: Novosibirskij klassicheskij institut.
36. 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.
37. Theunissen M., Hanekom J. & Swanepoel D.W. 2011. The development of the Afrikaans test for sentence recognition thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 50, 77-85.
38. Versfeld N.J., Daalder L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2000. Method for the selection of sentence material for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 1671-1684.
39. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache Teil II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test, Part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence tests). Z Audiol, 38, 44-56.
40. Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test-Part III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 86-95.
41. Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test-Part I: Design of the Oldenburg sentence test). Z Audiol, 38, 4-15.
42. Wagener K., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17.
43. Wagener K. 2004. Factors influencing sentence intelligibility in noise (dissertation) University of Oldenburg, BIS-Verlag, ISBN 3-8142-0897-8.
44. Warzybok A., Brand T., Wagener K.C.& Kollmeier B. (under review) How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise Under review in Int J Audiol.
45. Wesker T., Meyer B., Wagener K., Anemueller J., Mertins A. et al. 2005. Oldenburg Logatome Speech Corpus (OLLO) for speech recognition experiments with humans and machines. Proceedings of Interspeech, pp. 1273-1276.
46. Wong L.L.N. & Soli S.D. 2008. The Cantonese version of the hearing in noise test (CHINT). Int J Audiol, 47(6), 388-390.
47. 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(6), 348-355.
48. Zokoll M., Wagener K.C., Brand T., Buschermöhle M. & Kollmeier B. 2012. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: The German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype. Int J Audiol, 51, 697-707.
49. Zokoll M.A., Hochmuth S., Warzybok A., Wagener K.C., Buschermöhle M. et al. 2013. Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics. Am J Audiol, 22, 175-178.