Characteristics and international comparability of the Finnish matrix sentence test in cochlear implant recipients

References

• Arnoldner C. & Lin V.Y. 2013. Expanded selection criteria in adult cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int, Suppl. 4, S10–13.
   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. Audiology, 34(5), 260–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boyd P.J. 2015. Potential benefits from cochlear implantation of children with unilateral hearing loss. Cochlear Implants Int, 16(3), 121–136.
   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(6), 2801–2810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1989. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 86(4), 1374–1383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buschermöhle M., Berg D., Wittkop T., Zokoll M.A. & Kollmeier B. 2014. Sprachaudiometrie mit Matrixtests (speech audiometry with matrix tests). Z Audiol, 53(3), 94–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büchner A., Beynon A., Szyfter W., Niemczyk K., Hoppe U. et al. 2011. Clinical evaluation of cochlear implant sound coding taking into account conjectural masking functions, MP3000TM. Cochlear Implants Int, 12(4), 194–204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cullington H.E. & Zeng F.G. 2011. Comparison of bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users on speech recognition with competing talker, music perception, affective prosody discrimination, and talker identification. Ear Hear, 32(1), 16–30.
   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, 137(7), 728–737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredelake S. & Hohmann V. 2012. Factors affecting predicted speech intelligibility with cochlear implants in an auditory model for electrical stimulation. Hear Res, 287(1–2), 76–90.
   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. Scand Audiol, 11(2), 79–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Härkönen K., Kivekäs I., Rautiainen M., Kotti V., Sivonen V. et al. 2015. Sequential bilateral cochlear implantation improves working performance, quality of life, and quality of hearing. Acta Otolaryngol, 13, 1–7, (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Hey M., Vorwerk W., Langer J., Vorwerk K., Begall K.. 2003. Vergleich von Satztest im Störschall bei Cochlea Implantat Patienten. 6. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Audiologie, 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Hey M., Hocke T., Braun A., Scholz G., Brademann G. et al. 2010. Erhebung von normativen Daten für den Oldenburger Satztest bei CI-Patienten. 13. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie, 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Hey M., Hocke T., Hedderich J. & Müller-Deile J. 2014. Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients. Int J Audiol, 53(12), 895–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmair-Desoyer I., Schulz E., Moser L. & Schmidt M. 1997. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol, 18(6 Suppl.), S83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoppe U. 2007. Evaluation of hearing-aid benefit using speech audiometry. Proceedings of the 52nd International Congress of Hearing Aid Acousticians - Nuremberg.
   Google Scholar
• IEC-60645-2:1997. Audiometers - Part 2: Equipment for speech audiometry (IEC 60645-2:1993); German version EN 60645-2:1997.
   Google Scholar
• ISO-8253-3: 2012. Acoustics - Audiometric test methods - Part 3: Speech audiometry.
   Google Scholar
• Jauhiainen T. 1974. An experimental study of the auditory perception of isolated bi-syllabic Finnish words. Thesis/Dissertation, University of Helsinki, 182(1).
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling J. 2010. Moderne Sprachtests auf dem Weg von der Forschung in di Praxis. HNO, 58(1), 595–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Lenarz T., Kiessling J., Müller-Deile J., Steffens T. et al. 2014. Contribution to the discussion surrounding the Freiburg speech test. HNO, 62(1), 49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Lenarz T., Winkler A., Zokoll M.A., Sukowski H. et al. 2011. Indication for and verification of hearing-aid benefit using modern methods of speech audiometry. In German. HNO, 59(10), 1012–1021.
   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(4), 2412–2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laske R.D., Veraguth D., Dillier N., Binkert A., Holzmann D. et al. 2009. Subjective and objective results after bilateral cochlear implantation in adults. Otol Neurotol, 30(3), 313–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laszig R., Aschendorff A., Stecker M., Müller-Deile J., Maune S. et al. 2004. Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the Nucleus Cochlear implant in adults: Six-month postoperative results. Otol Neurotol, 25(6), 958–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz M., Sonmez H., Joseph G., Buchner A. & Lenarz T. 2012. Long-term performance of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 147(1), 112–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz T., James C., Cuda D., Fitzgerald O Connor A. et al. 2013. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. Int J Audiol, 52(12), 838–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz T., Pau H.W. & Paasche G. 2013. Cochlear implants. Curr Pharm Biotechnol, 14, 112–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. 1978. Adaptive testing in audiology. Scand Audiol Suppl, 6(6), 241–291.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Müller J., Brill S., Hagen R., Moeltner A. Brockmeier S.J. et al. 2012. Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec, 74(4), 185–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Deile J. 2009. Speech intelligibility tests in cochlear implant patients. HNO, 57(6), 580–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen J.B. & Dau T. 2009. Development of a Danish speech intelligibility test. Int J Audiol, 48(10), 729–741.
   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(2), 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palva T. 1952. Finnish speech audiometry. Thesis. University of Turku, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18(1), 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soli S.D. & Wong L.L. 2008. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47(6), 356–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sukowski H., Wagener K.C., Thiele C., Uppenkamp S. & Kollmeier B. 2013. Application of new speech intelligibility tests in silence for the assessment of acquired hearing losses. HNO, 61(1), 14–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton A.R. & Raffin M.J. 1978. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res, 21(3), 507–518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Wieringen A. & Wouters J. 2008. LIST and LIN: 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
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache: Design, Optimierung, Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (Teil 1-3). Z Audiol, 38(1-3), 4–15-44–56, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Zirn S., Hempel J.M., Hemmert W., Keller S. & Polterauer D. 2014. Psychometric functions of cochlear implant users in fluctuating and steady-state noise. 13th International Conference on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technology. Munich.
   Google Scholar
• Zokoll M.A., Hochmuth S., Warzybok A., Wagener K.C., Buschermohle M. et al. 2013. Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics. Am J Audiol, 22(1), 175–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar