Speech audiometry in Estonia: Estonian words in noise (EWIN) test

References

• Bevilacqua M.C., Banhara M.R., Da Costa E.A., Vignoly A.B. & Alvarenga K.F. 2008. The Brazilian Portuguese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 364–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilger R.C., Nuetzel J.M., Rabinowitz W.M. & Rzeczkowski C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bosman A.J. 1989. Speech Perception by the Hearing Impaired. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. 1968. Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am, 43, 362–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. 2006. CASPA 5.0. Software. San Diego: A. Boothroyd.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G. & Gilmore C. 1987. Development of the connected discourse test (CST). Ear Hear, 8, 119S–126S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craik F.I.M. 1994. Memory changes in normal aging. Am Psychol Soc, 3, 155–158.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A. & Plomp R. 1980. Relation between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 68, 1608–1615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erelt M. 2003. Estonian Language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Francart T., van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. APEX3: A multi- purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods, 172, 283–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand S.A. 2003. Tri-word presentations with phonemic scoring for practical high-reliability speech recognition assessment. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 46, 405–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer K. 1995. Auditory perception by older adults. In: R. Huntley, K. Helfer (eds.), Communication in Later Life. Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann, 41–84.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E. et al. 1952. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord, 17, 321–337.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K.C., Frachet B. & Wouters J. 2010. The French digit triplet test: A hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 49 (5), 378–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jundas E., Kippak R., Kumberg K., Põder S. 2005. Ilus Emakeel. 2. klassi Eesti keele õpik. (1. + 2. osa). Tallinn: Koolibri.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C., Niquette P.A., Gundmundsen G.I., Revit L.J. & Banerjee S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. & Villchur E. 1993. Kessles was right, partly: But SIN test shows some aids improve hearing in noise. Hear J, 46(9), 31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. 2002. New thinking on hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Semin Hear, 23, 57–75.
   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
• Ludvigsen C. 1992. Comparison of certain measures of speech and noise level. Scand Audiol, 21, 23–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson L. 1995. Reliable clinical determination of speech recognition scores using Swedish PB words in speech weighted-noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 217–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McArdle R., Wilson R.H. & Burks C.A. 2005. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 726–739.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCreery R., Ito R., Spratford M., Lewis D., Hoover B. et al. 2010. Performance-intensity functions for normal-hearing adults and children using CASPA. Ear Hear, 31(1), 95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murdock Jr. B.B. 1962. The serial position effect of free recall. J Exp Psychol, 64, 482–488.
   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(2), 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979a. 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
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979b. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salthouse T.A. 1985. A Theory of Cognitive Aging. Amsterdam: North- Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Sutrop U. 2004. Estonian Language. Tallinn: Estonian Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Tillman T.W. & Carhart R. 1966. An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: US Air Force.
   Google Scholar
• Tungal L. & Hiiepuu E. 2007. Eesti keele õpik 1. klassile. Tallinn: Avita.
   Google Scholar
• Vaillancourt V., Laroche C., Mayer C., Basque C., Nali M. et al. 2005. Adaption 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
• Villchur E. 1982. The evaluation of amplitude-compression processing for hearing aids. In: G. Studebaker & F. Bess (eds). The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report. Upper Darby, USA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology.
   Google Scholar
• Vlaming M.S.M.G., Kollmeier B., Dreschler W.A., Martin R., Wouters J. et al. 2011. HearCom: Hearing in the Communication Society. Acta Acustica United with Acoustica, 97, 175–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H. 2003. Development of a speech in multitalker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 453–470.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wingfield A. 1996. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 175–182.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wouters J., Damman W. & Bosman A.J. 1994. Vlaamse opname van woordenlijsten voor spraakaudiometrie. Logopedie, 6, 28–33.
   Google Scholar
• Zokoll M.A., 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar