Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study

References

• ISO 389-1. 1998. Acoustics – reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment – Part 1: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and supra-aural earphones. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 16832. 2006. Acoustics – Loudness scaling by means of categories. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Athalye S.P. 2010. Factors affecting speech recognition in noise and hearing loss in adults with a wide variety of auditory capabilities. PhD thesis, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger S., Billermark E., Oberg M., Lunner T. & Hellgren J. 1998. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 27 (1), 51–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baddeley A., Logi R., Nimmo-Smith I. & Brereton N. 1985. Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang, 24, 119–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench J., Kowal A. & Bamford J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blandy S. & Lutman M. 2005. Hearing threshold levels and speech recognition in noise in 7-year-olds. Int J Audiol, 44, 435–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand T. & Hohmann V. 2001. Effect of hearing loss, centre frequency, and bandwidth on the shape of loudness functions in categorical loudness scaling. Audiology, 40, 2, 92–1033.
   Google Scholar
• Brand T. & Hohmann H. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1597–1604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 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, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattermole C. 2003. Comparison of speech recognition in noise with sound field and earphone presentation. MSc dissertation, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton, UK.
   Google Scholar
• De Laat J.A.P.M. & Plomp R. 1983. The reception threshold of interrupted speech for hearing-impaired listeners. In: R. Klinke & R. Hartman (eds.) Hearing – Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 359–363.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., van Esch T.E., Lyzenga J., Larsby B., Vliegen J. et al. 2005. D-2-1, Implementation of a preliminary test set for auditory impairments. FP6-004171 HEARCOM: Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A. & Leeuw A.R. 1990. Speech reception in reverberation related to temporal resolution. J Speech Hear Res, 33, 181–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology, 40, 148–157
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dreschler W.A. & Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing-impaired subjects. II. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1261–1270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1983. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 652–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88 (4), 1725–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77–S85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 2006. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295–2311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George E.L., Zekveld A.A., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Festen J.M. et al. 2007. Auditory and non-auditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362–2375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C. 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol (Suppl),32, 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2010. The binaural intelligibility level difference in hearing-impaired listeners: The role of supra-threshold deficits. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 3073–3084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grantham D.W., Hornsby B.W. & Erpenbeck E.A. 2003. Auditory spatial resolution in horizontal, vertical, and diagonal planes. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1009–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafter E.R., Saberi K., Jensen E.R. & Briolle F. 1992. Localization in an echoic environment. Adv Biosci, 83, 555–561.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise Ttest (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2001. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing- impaired persons. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 357–370
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hausler R., Colburn S. & Marr E. 1983. Sound localization in subjects with impaired hearing. Spatial-discrimination and interaural-discrimination tests. Acta Otolaryngol (Suppl), 400, 1–62.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Koopman J., Houben R., Dreschler W. & Verschuure J. 2006. Development of a speech in noise test (Matrix). 8th EFAS Congress, 10th DGA Congress, 6–9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer S.E., Kapteyn T.S. & Festen J.M. 1998. The self-reported handicapping effect of hearing disabilities. Audiology, 37, 302–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Landis J.R. & Koch G.G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1998. A method for evaluating temporal, spectral, and combined temporal-spectral resolution of hearing. Scand Audiol, 27 (1), 3–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1999. Auditory temporal and spectral resolution in normal and impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 198–210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larsby B., Hallgren M., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2005. Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: Effects of different noise backgrounds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 44, 131–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middlebrooks J.C. 1999a. Individual differences in external-ear transfer functions reduced by scaling in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1480–1492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middlebrooks J.C. 1999b. Virtual localization improved by scaling nonindividualized external-ear transfer functions in frequency. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1493–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills A.W. 1958. On the minimum audible angle. J Acoust Soc Am, 30, 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. 2008. The choice of compression speed in hearing AIDS: Theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif, 12, 103–112.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Natasha: Network and Tools for the Assessment of Speech/Language and Hearing Ability, European project, http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/andyf/natasha
   Google Scholar
• Noble W., Ter-Horst K. & Byrne D. 1995. Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localization. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 129–140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43, 100–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noordhoek I.M., Houtgast T. & Festen J.M. 2001. Relations between intelligibility of narrow-band speech and auditory functions, both in the 1-kHz frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1197–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson R.D., Nimmo-Smith I., Weber D.L. & Milroy R. 1982. The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 1788–1803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters R.W., Moore B.C. & Baer T. 1998. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally-hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 577–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringdahl A., Eriksson-Mangold M. & Andersson G. 1998. Psychometric evaluation of the Gothenburg profile for measurement of experienced hearing disability and handicap: Applications with new hearing-aid candidates and experienced hearing-aid users. Br J Audiol, 32, 375–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulte M., Wagener K.C., Vormann M., Dillier N. & Büchler M. 2007. D-7-4, Report tests for listening effort. FP6-004171 HEARCOM: Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz G. 1978. Estimating dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silzle A. 2007. Generation of quality taxonomies for auditory virtual environments by means of systematic expert survey. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Tervaniemi M. & Hugdahl K. 2003. Lateralization of auditory-cortex functions. Brain Res Rev, 43, 231–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Esch T.E. & Dreschler W.A. 2011. Measuring spectral and temporal resolution simultaneously: A comparison between two tests. Int J Audiol, 50, 477–490.
   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
• Versfeld N.J. & Dreschler W.A. 2002. The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 401–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlaming M.S., Kollmeier B., Dreschler W.A., Martin R., Wouters J. et al. 2011. HearCom: Hearing in the communication society. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 97, 175–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. 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.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test part II: Optimization of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol, 38, 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. 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.C. & Brand T. 2005. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol, 44, 144–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006a. The role of silent intervals for sentence intelligibility in fluctuating noise in hearing-impaired listeners. Int J Audiol, 45, 26–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2006b. International cross-validation of sentence intelligibility tests. 8th EFAS Congress 10th DGA Congress, 6–9 June 2006, Heidelberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K.C., Vliegen J., Lutman M.E. & Lyzenga J. 2006c. D-1-3, protocol for implementation of communication tests in different languages. FP6-004171 HEARCOM Hearing in the Communication Society (public project report).
   Google Scholar
• Zekveld A.A., George E.L., Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T. & Houtgast T. 2007. The development of the text reception threshold test: A visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 576–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar