Development of the Russian matrix sentence test

References

• 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.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy A.J. & Plomp R. 1983. The effect of a hearing aid on the speech-reception threshold of hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 2166–2173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goshorn E.L. & Studebaker G.A. 1994. Effects of intensity on speech recognition in high- and low-frequency bands. Ear Hear, 15, 454–460.
   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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J. & Bowman W.D. 1953. Masking of speech by bands of noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 25, 1175–1180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J., Reynolds E.G. & Joseph M. 1954. The intelligibility of different speech materials. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 530–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   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
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kučera 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Moore T. 1981. Voice communication jamming research. In: AGARD Conference Proceedings 331: Aural Communication in Aviation, NeuillySurSeine, France, pp. 2:1–2:6.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J.B. & Dau T. 2011. The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 50, 202–208.
   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
• 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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickett J.M. & Polack I. 1958. Prediction of speech intelligibility at high noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 955–963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Puglisi G.E., Astolfi A., Prodi N., Visentin Ch., Warzybok A. et al. 2014. 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   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(11), 743–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   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. 2004. Factors influencing sentence intelligibility in noise (dissertation) University of Oldenburg, BIS-Verlag, ISBN 3-8142-0897-8.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   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(6), 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   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