Optimised adaptive procedures and analysis methods for conducting speech-in-noise tests

References

• Brand, T., and B. Kollmeier. 2002. “Efficient Adaptive Procedures for Threshold and Concurrent Slope Estimates for Psychophysics and Speech Intelligibility Tests.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111 (6): 2801–2810. doi:10.1121/1.1479152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes, D. M. 2021. “VOICEBOX: A speech processing toolbox for MATLAB.” Accessed 16 July 2021. http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/voicebox/voicebox.html
   Google Scholar
• Cover, T. M., and J. A. Thomas. 2006. Elements of Information Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Doire, C. S. J., M. Brookes, and P. A. Naylor. 2017. “Robust and Efficient Bayesian Adaptive Psychometric Function Estimation.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 141 (4): 2501–2512. doi:10.1121/1.4979580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, K. R., and N. L. Aarts. 2006. “A Comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN Tests.” Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology 30 (2): 86.
   Google Scholar
• Fründ, I., N. V. Haenel, and F. A. Wichmann. 2011. “Inference for Psychometric Functions in the Presence of Nonstationary Behavior.” Journal of Vision 11 (6): 16–19. doi:10.1167/11.6.16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamer, M., J. Lemon, I. Fellows, and P. Singh. 2019. Irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr
   Google Scholar
• Green, D. M. 1990. “Stimulus Selection in Adaptive Psychophysical Procedures.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87 (6): 2662–2674. doi:10.1121/1.399058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. M. 1993. “A Maximum-Likelihood Method for Estimating Thresholds in a Yes–No Task.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (4): 2096–2105. doi:10.1121/1.406696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. M. 1995. “Maximum-Likelihood Procedures and the Inattentive Observer.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97 (6): 3749–3760. doi:10.1121/1.412390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HörTech gGmbH Oldenburg. 2011. Oldenburger Satztest: Bedienungsanleitung für den manuellen Test auf Audio-CD. Oldenburg, Germany: HörTech gGmbH Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• HörTech gGmbH Oldenburg. 2019. Oldenburger Messprogramme (Version 2.0). https://www.hoertech.de/de/produkte/oldenburger-messprogramme.html
   Google Scholar
• Hu, W., B. A. Swanson, and G. Z. Heller. 2015. “A Statistical Method for the Analysis of Speech Intelligibility Tests.” PloS One 10 (7): e0132409. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser, G., H. Dillon, J. Mejia, and C. V. Nguyen. 2013. “An Algorithm That Administers Adaptive Speech-in-Noise Testing to a Specified Reliability at Selectable Points on the Psychometric Function.” International Journal of Audiology 52 (11):795–800. doi:10.3109/14992027.2013.817688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B., A. Warzybok, S. Hochmuth, M. A. Zokoll, V. Uslar, T. Brand, and K. C. Wagener. 2015. “The Multilingual Matrix Test: Principles, Applications, and Comparison Across Languages: A Review.” International Journal of Audiology 54 (sup2): 3–16. doi:10.3109/14992027.2015.1020971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B., and M. Wesselkamp. 1997. “Development and Evaluation of a German Sentence Test for Objective and Subjective Speech Intelligibility Assessment.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102 (4): 2412–2421. doi:10.1121/1.419624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kontsevich, L. L., and C. W. Tyler. 1999. “Bayesian Adaptive Estimation of Psychometric Slope and Threshold.” Vision Research 39 (16): 2729–2737. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00285-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo, T. K., and M. Y. Li. 2016. “A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.” Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 15 (2): 155–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, M. R. 2001. “Adaptive Procedures in Psychophysical Research.” Perception & Psychophysics 63 (8):1279–1292. doi:10.3758/bf03194543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macmillan, N. A, and C. D. Creelman. 2004. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacPherson, A., and M. A. Akeroyd. 2014. “Variations in the Slope of the Psychometric Functions for Speech Intelligibility: A Systematic Survey.” Trends in Hearing 18. doi:10.1177/2331216514537722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor, G. 2016. “Theoretical Issues of Validity in the Measurement of Aided Speech Reception Threshold in Noise for Comparing Nonlinear Hearing Aid Systems.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 27 (7): 504–514. doi:10.3766/jaaa.15093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., S. D. Soli, and J. A. Sullivan. 1994. “Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the Measurement of Speech Reception Thresholds in Quiet and in Noise.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95 (2): 1085–1099. doi:10.1121/1.408469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prins, N. 2012. “The Psychometric Function: The Lapse Rate Revisited.” Journal of Vision 12 (6): 25–25. doi:10.1167/12.6.25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prins, N. 2013. “The Psi-Marginal Adaptive Method: How to Give Nuisance Parameters the Attention They Deserve (No More, No Less).” Journal of Vision 13 (7): 3–17. doi:10.1167/13.7.3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prins, N. 2019. “Too Much Model, Too Little Data: How a Maximum-Likelihood Fit of a Psychometric Function May Fail, and How to Detect and Avoid This.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 81 (5): 1725–1739. doi:10.3758/s13414-019-01706-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Remus, J. J., and L. M. Collins. 2007. “A Comparison of Adaptive Psychometric Procedures Based on the Theory of Optimal Experiments and Bayesian Techniques: Implications for Cochlear Implant Testing.” Perception & Psychophysics 69 (3):311–323. doi:10.3758/bf03193752.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Remus, J. J., and L. M. Collins. 2008. “Comparison of Adaptive Psychometric Procedures Motivated by the Theory of Optimal Experiments: Simulated and Experimental Results.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 (1): 315–326. doi:10.1121/1.2816567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schütt, H. H., S. Harmeling, J. H. Macke, and F. A. Wichmann. 2016. “Painfree and Accurate Bayesian Estimation of Psychometric Functions for (Potentially) Overdispersed Data.” Vision Research 122 : 105–123. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2016.02.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, Y., W. Dai, and V. M. Richards. 2015. “A MATLAB Toolbox for the Efficient Estimation of the Psychometric Function Using the Updated Maximum-Likelihood Adaptive Procedure.” Behavior Research Methods 47 (1): 13–26. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0450-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, Y., and V. M. Richards. 2012. “A Maximum-Likelihood Procedure for Estimating Psychometric Functions: Thresholds, Slopes, and Lapses of Attention.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132 (2): 957–967. doi:10.1121/1.4733540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds, K., F. Wolters, and M. Rung. 2015. “Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios.” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 26 (2): 183–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener, K. 2021. Marie-Curie-Strasse 2, D-26129 Oldenburg, Germany: Hörzentrum Oldenburg gGmbH; Private Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener, K., T. Brand, and B. Kollmeier. 1999a. “Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and Evaluation of a Sentence Test for the German language II: Optimization of the Oldenburg Sentence Test).” Zeitschrift Für Audiologie (Audiological Acoustics) 38 : 44–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagener, K., T. Brand, and B. Kollmeier. 1999b. “Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and Evaluation of a Sentence Test for the German Language III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg Sentence Test).” Zeitschrift Für Audiologie (Audiological Acoustics) 38 : 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener, K., V. Kühnel, and B. Kollmeier. 1999. “Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and Evaluation of a Sentence Test for the German Language I: Design of the Oldenburg Sentence Test).” Zeitschrift Für Audiologie (Audiological Acoustics) 38 : 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wardenga, N., C. Batsoulis, K. C. Wagener, T. Brand, T. Lenarz, and H. Maier. 2015. “Do You Hear the Noise? The German Matrix Sentence Test With a Fixed Noise Level in Subjects With Normal Hearing and Hearing Impairment.” International Journal of Audiology 54 (sup2): 71–79. doi:10.3109/14992027.2015.1079929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, A. B., and A. Fitzhugh. 1990. “The Method of Constant Stimuli Is Inefficient.” Perception & Psychophysics 47 (1): 87–91. doi:10.3758/bf03208169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wichmann, F. A., and N. J. Hill. 2001. “The Psychometric Function: II. Bootstrap-Based Confidence Intervals and Sampling.” Perception & Psychophysics 63 (8): 1314–1329. doi:10.3758/BF03194545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y.-H., E. Stangl, O. Chipara, S. S. Hasan, A. Welhaven, and J. Oleson. 2018. “Characteristics of Real-World Signal to Noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.” Ear and Hearing 39 (2): 293–304. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar