Investigation into the applicability and optimization of the Dutch matrix sentence test for use with cochlear implant users

References

• De Ayala R.J. 2008. The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York: The Guilford Press, ch. 6.
   Google Scholar
• Bench J., Kowal A. & Bamford J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boothroyd T., Hnath-Chisolm T. & Hanin L. 1985. A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set-equivalence, and short-term learning. City Univ, New York, Tech. Rep. RCI10.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. & Nittrouer S. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 101–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand T. 2000. Analysis and Optimization of Psychophysical Procedures in Audiology. Thesis, Universität Oldenburg. Chapter 1.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W., Bosman A.J. & Smoorenburg G.F. 1993. A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 499–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayazi L., Modarresi Y., Zokoll M.A., Hochmuth S. & Kollmeier B. 2013. A Persian matrix sentence test. Presentation at the 11th congress of the European Federation of Audiological Societies (EFAS), June 19–22, 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
   Google Scholar
• Gantz B.J., Tyler R.S., Rubinstein J.T., Wolaver A., Lowder M. et al, 2002. Binaural cochlear implants placed during the same operation. Otol Neurotol, 23, 169–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R.H., Shallop J.K. & Peterson A.M. 2008. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol, 13, 193–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall S. 2006. The Development of a New English Sentence-in-noise Test and an English Number Recognition Test. Southampton, UK: MSc. thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, University of Southampton.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt D.R., 2008. Evaluation of an English Speech-in-Noise Audiometry Test. Southampton, UK: MSc. thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, University of Southampton.
   Google Scholar
• Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M.A., Castro F.Z., Wardenga N. et al. 2012. A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise. Int J Audiol, 51, 536–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houben A.C.H., Koopman J., Luts H., Wagener K., van Wieringen A. et al, 2014. Development of a Dutch matrix speech-in-noise test. Accepted by Int J Audiol.
   Google Scholar
• 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 multi- center study. Int J Audiol, 51, 164–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman J., Houben R., Dreschler W.A. & Verschuure J. 2007. Development of a speech in noise test (matrix). Poster at the 8th Congress of the European Federation of Audiological Societies (EFAS), June 6–9, 2007, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Litovsky R., Parkinson A., Arcaroli J. & Sammeth C. 2006. Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: A multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear, 27, 714–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littell R.C., Pendergast J. & Natarajan R. 2004. Modelling covariance structure in the analysis of repeated measures data. In: R.B. D’Agostino (ed.), Tutorials in Biostatistics: Statistical Modelling of Complex Medical Data, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, p. 166.
   Google Scholar
• Loven F.C. & Hawkins D.B. 1983. Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22 word lists presented in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear, 4, 91–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. 1985. Frequency selectivity and temporal resolution in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Br J Audiol, 19, 189–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Müller-Deile J. 2009. Sprachverstandlichkeitsuntersuchungen bei Kochleaimplantatpatienten. HNO, 57, 580–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øygarden J. 2009. Norwegian Speech Audiometry. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
   Google Scholar
• Ozimek E., Warzybok A. & Kutzner D. 2010. Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 444–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schafer E.C., Pogue J. & Milrany T. 2012. List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 501–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits C. & Festen J.M. 2011. The interpretation of speech reception threshold data in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners: Steady-state noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 2987–2998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spahr A.J., Dorman M.F., Litvak L.M., Van Wie S., Gifford R.H. et al. 2012. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear, 33, 112–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 1671–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in Deutscher Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and evaluation of a set test in German language I: Design of the Oldenburger set test). Z f Audiol, 38, 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Z f Audiol, 38, 44–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z f Audiol, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K. 2003. Factors influencing sentence intelligibility in noise. Thesis Universität Oldenburg. Chapter 4.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir J.P. 2005. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, p. 231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon Y.S., Li Y., Kang H.Y. & Fu Q.J. 2011. The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol, 50, 554–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zokoll M.A., Hochmuth S., Warzybok A., Wagener K., Buschermöhle M. et al. 2013. Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics. Am J Audiol, 22, 175–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar