Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test

References

• Akeroyd M.A., Arlinger S., Bentler R., Boothroyd A., Dillier N. et al. 2015. ICRA recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. (Int J Audiol, early online), DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1030513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.5-1997, American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P. & Weeniken D. 2001. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (computer program, version 5.1). Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.praat.org/
   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
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(4), 2106–2120.
   Google Scholar
• Cekic S. & Sennaroglu G. 2008. The Turkish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 366–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz A., Buschermöhle M., Aarnisalo A.A., Vanhannen A., Hyyrynen T. et al. 2014. The development and evaluation of the Finnish matrix sentence test for speech intelligibility assessment. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 134(7), 728–737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durankaya S.M., Serbetcioglu B., Dalkilic G, Gürkan S. & Kirkim G. 2014. Development of a Turkish monosyllabic word recognition test for adults. Int Adv Otol, 10(2), 172–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fidan D. 2011. Teaching soft g (<ğ>) in acquisition of literacy processing. In: Uzun & Bozkurt (eds.) Theoretical and Applied Researches on Turkish Language Teaching. Essen: Die Blue Eule Press. pp. 101–112.
   Google Scholar
• Göksel A. & Kerslake C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. (3rd reprint, 2010) London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11(2), 79–87.
   PubMedGoogle 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(7), 536–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochmuth S., Jürgens T., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation? (submitted to Int J Audiol).
   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(10), 760–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO 389-8:2004. Acoustics - Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment - Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones. International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 8253-3:2012. Acoustic - Audiometric test methods - Part 3: Speech audiometry. 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(3), 164–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B. 1998. On the four factors involved in sensorineural hearing loss. Dau, Hohmann, Kollmeier (eds.). Psychophysics, Physiology and Models of Hearing. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 211–218.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B. 1990. Meßmethodik, Modellierung und Verbesserung der Verständlichkeit von Sprache (in German). (Habilitation) Göttingen, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Warzybok A., Hochmuth S., Zokoll M.A., Uslar V.N. et al. 2015. The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review. (Int J Audiol, early online) DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornfilt J. 1997. Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
   Google Scholar
• Menz A. 2011. The Turkish languages of Europe. In: B. Kortmann, J. Auwera van der (eds.). The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. de Gruyter, Monton. Berlin/Boston. pp. 159–178.
   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
• Øygarden J. 2009. Norwegian Speech Audiometry. (PhD thesis) Trondheim: Faculty of Arts, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
   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. 1978. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 63(2), 533–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18(1), 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramkissoon I. 2001. Speech recognition thresholds for multilingual populations. Com Dis Quarterly, 22(3), 158–162.
   Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F. 1992. Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 91(1), 421–437.
   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(6), 356–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tek K. 2007. Der Tek-Sprachverständlichkeitstest-Entwicklung und Evaluation eines türkischen Sprachtests / Teil I and II (in German). DHZ, (12), 16–17, 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• van Wijngaarden S.J., Steeneken H.J.M. & Houtgast T. 2002. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1906–1916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C. 2003. Factors Influencing Sentence Intelligibility in Noise. (Doctoral thesis) Oldenburg, bis-Verlag Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II. Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). Z Audiol, 38(2), 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III. Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). Z Audiol, 38(3), 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42(1), 10–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I. Design des Oldenburger Satztests (in German). Z Audiol, 38(1), 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Warzybok A., Brand T., Wagener K.C. & Kollmeier B. 2015. How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise? (accepted for publication in the Int J Audiol).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warzybok A., Zokoll M.A., Wardenga N., Ozimek E., Boboshko et al. 2015. Development of the Russian matrix sentence test (Int J Audiol, early online) DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1063715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar