Modifications of the MUlti stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology

References

• Amlani, A.M. & Schafer, E.C. 2009. Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing aids. Trends Amplif, 13, 241–259.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S3.1-1999. 2008. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms (R2008 Ed.). Washington, DC: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Binder, E.F., Storandt, M. & Birge, S.J. 1999. The relation between psychometric test performance and physical performance in older adults. J Geronol: Med Sci, 54A, M428–M432.
   Google Scholar
• Brooke, J. 1996. SUS – A quick and dirty usability scale In: Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 189–194.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R. & Keidser, G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cubick, J., Santurette, S., Dau, T. & Laugesen, S. 2014. Influence of High-frequency Audibility on the Perceived Distance of Sounds. In Forum Acusticum 2014, Krakow. European Acoustics Association.
   Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis, G.B. & Heiser, W.J. 1995. The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis. Food Qual Pref, 6, 263–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elko, G.W. & Nguyen Pong, A.T. 1995. A simple adaptive first-order differential microphone. In: IEEE ASSP Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, pp. 169–172.
   Google Scholar
• European Committee for Standardization. 2001. Acoustics – Statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age (ISO 7029:2000). European Committee for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Glende, S., Nedopil, C., Podtschaske, B., Stahl, M. & Friesdorf, W. 2011. Erfolgreiche Lösungen durch Nutzerintegration. Ergebnisse der Studie” Nutzerabhängige Innovationsbarrieren im Bereich Altersgerechter Assistenzsysteme”. Berlin, Offenbach: VDE-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Granick, S. & Friedman, A.S. 1967. The effect of education on the decline of psychometric test performance with age. J Gerontol, 22, 191–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grimm, G., Coleman, G. & Hohmann, V. 2013. Realistic spatially complex acoustic scenes for space-aware hearing aids and computational acoustic scene analysis. In: 16. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie. Rostock, Germany: German Acoustical Society (DEGA).
   Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Herzke, T., Berg, D. & Hohmann, V. 2006. The Master Hearing Aid: A PC-based platform for algorithm development and evaluation. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 92, 618–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 2009. Increase and subjective evaluation of feedback stability in hearing aids by a binaural coherence-based noise reduction scheme. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 17, 1408–1419.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Wendt, T., Hohmann, V. & Ewert, S. 2014. Implementation and perceptual evaluation of a simulation method for coupled rooms in higher order ambisonics. Proceedings of the EAA Joint Symposium on Auralization and Ambisonics, Berlin, pp. 27–32.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, D., Malléus, G. & Méreur, J.-N. (eds.) 2002. Networks: Internet, Telephony, Multimedia. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, R. & Kollmeier, B. 2006. PEMO-Q – A new method for objective audio quality assessment using a model of auditory perception. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 14, 1902–1911.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-R – Radiocommunication Sector of ITU. 2014a. Recommendation ITU-R BS.1534-2 – Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of audio systems. BS Series, Broadcasting service (sound). International Telecommunication Union
   Google Scholar
• ITU-R – Radiocommunication Sector of ITU. 2014b. Report ITU-R BS.2300-0 – Methods for Assessor Screening. BS Series, Broadcasting service (sound). International Telecommunication Union.
   Google Scholar
• Kuk, F.K. 2002. Paired comparisons as a fine-tuning tool in hearing aid fittings. In: Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (2nd ed.). New York: Thieme, pp. 125–150.
   Google Scholar
• Künemund, H. & Tanschus, N.M. 2014. The technology acceptance puzzle – Results of a representative survey in lower saxony. Zeitschrift Für Gerontologie Und Geriatrie, 47, 641–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorho, G., Le Ray, G. & Zacharov, N. 2010. eGauge – A measure of assessor expertise in audio quality evaluations. In Audio Engineering Society Conference: 38th International Conference: Sound Quality Evaluation (pp. 191–200). Audio Engineering Society.
   Google Scholar
• Muralimanohar, R.K., Kronen, C., Arehart, K., Kates, J. & Pichora-Fuller, M.K. 2013. Quality of voices processed by hearing aids: Intra-talker differences. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, vol. 19. Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Neyer, F.J., Felber, J. & Gebhardt, C. 2012. Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica, 58, 87–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsa, V., Scollie, S., Glista, D. & Seelisch, A. 2013. Nonlinear frequency compression: Effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music. Trends Amplif, 17, 54–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfitzinger, H.R. 1998. Local speech rate as a combination of syllable and phone rate. In: 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Sydney, vol. 3, pp. 1087–1090.
   Google Scholar
• Pfitzinger, H.R. 2003. Acoustic correlates of the IPA vowel diagram. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2003, Barcelona, vol. 2, pp. 1441–1444.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, A.T., Jiradejvong, P., Carver, C. & Limb, C.J. 2012a. Assessment of sound quality perception in cochlear implant users during music listening. Otol Neurotol, 33, 319–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, A.T., Jiradejvong, P., Carver, C. & Limb, C.J. 2012b. Musical sound quality impairments in cochlear implant (ci) users as a function of limited high-frequency perception. Trends Amplif, 16, 191–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schlich, P. 1994. GRAPES: A method and a SAS ® program for graphical representations of assessor performances. J Sensory Sci, 9, 157–169.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsen, C.S. & Legarth, S.V. 2010. A procedure for sound quality evaluation of hearing aids. Hear Rev, 17, 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar