Assessing speech recognition abilities with digits in noise in cochlear implant and hearing aid users

References

• American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: ANSI S3.5–1997.
   Google Scholar
• Benichov J., Cox L.C., Tun P.A. & Wingfield A. 2012. Word recognition within a linguistic context: Effects of age, hearing acuity, verbal ability, and cognitive function. Ear Hear, 33, 250–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland J.M. & Altman D.G. 1999. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res, 8, 135–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosman A.J. & Smoorenburg G.F. 1995. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 34, 260–284.
   Google Scholar
• de Vet H.C.W., Terwee C.B., Knol D.L. & Bouter L.M. 2006. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol, 59, 1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeney M.P., Folmer R.L., Vachhani J., McMillan G.P., Watson C.S. et al. 2013. Test performance of a computer version of the digits-in-noise test for adult hearing screening. Published Abstracts of the Midwinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. February 2013. Baltimore: ARO.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IEEE. 1969. IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 227–246.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K.C., Kollmeijer 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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luteijn F. & Barelds D.P.H. 2004. GIT2 Groninger Intelligentie Test 2. Handleiding. Amsterdam: Harcourt Test Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw K.O. & Wong S.P. 1996. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psych Methods, 1, 30–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M.J., 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
• Nunnally J.C. & Bernstein I.H. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlichting L. 2005. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III NL. Amsterdam: Harcourt Test Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Smits C., Goverts S.T. & Festen J.M. 2013. The digits-in-noise test: Assessing auditory speech recognition abilities in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 1693–1706.
   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
• Theunissen M., Swanepoel D.W. & Hanekom J. 2009. Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. Int J Audiol, 48, 743–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   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
• 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
• Wagenaar W.A. 1969. Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. Psychol Bull, 72, 384–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache Teil III: Evaluation des Olderburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wong L.L.N. & Keung S.K.H. 2013. Adaptation of scoring methods for testing cochlear implant users using the Cantonese hearing in noise test (CHINT). Ear Hear, 34, 630–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar