Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, Part 3: Test sensitivity for uncontrolled parameters in domestic usage

References

• Albrecht J., van Elewout L., Verhage L. & Verweij C. 2005. Oorcheck: De validering van een interactief screeningsinstrument. Internal report LUMC, Leiden.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1988. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 1508–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 260–284.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung D.Y. & Mack B. 1979. The effect of masking by noise on word discrimination scores in listeners with normal hearing and with noise-induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol, 8, 139–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Culling J.F., Zhao F. & Stephens D. 2005. The viability of speech-in-noise audiometric screening using domestic audio equipment. Int J Audiol, 44, 691–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis A., Haggard M. & Bell I. 1990. Magnitude of diotic summation in speech-in-noise tasks: Performance region and appropriate baseline. Br J Audiol, 24, 11–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno J.R., Horwitz A.R. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2006. Spectral and threshold effects on recognition of speech at higher-than-normal levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 310–320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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 Organisation of Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen S., Luts H., Wagener K.C., Frachet B. & Wouters J. 2010. The French digit triplet test: A hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 49, 378–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan H. & Pickett J.M. 1981. Effects of dichotic/diotic versus monotic presentation on speech understanding in noise in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 2, 202–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura D. 1961. Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory perception. Can J Psychol, 15, 156–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman J., Davey E., Thomas N., Wittkop T. & Verschuure H. 2008. How should hearing screening tests be offered?Int J Audiol, 47, 230–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leensen M.C.J., de Laat J.A.P.M. & Dreschler W.A. 2011. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, Part 1: Test evaluation for noise-induced hearing loss identification. Int J Audiol, 50, 823–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leensen M.C.J., de Laat J.A.P.M., Snik A.F.M. & Dreschler W.A. 2011. Speech-in-noise screening tests by internet, Part 2: Improving test sensitivity for noise-induced hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 50, 835–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McArdle R.A., Killion M., Mennite M.A. & Chisolm T.H. 2012. Are two ears not better than one?J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 171–181.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979a. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. & Mimpen A.M. 1979b. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology, 18, 43–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rhebergen K.S., Versfeld N.J., de Laat J.A.P.M. & Dreschler W. A. 2010. Modelling the speech reception threshold in non-stationary noise in hearing-impaired listeners as a function of level. Int J Audiol, 49, 856–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Smits C., Merkus P. & Houtgast T. 2006. How we do it: The Dutch functional hearing-screening tests by telephone and internet. Clin Otolaryngol, 31, 436–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg G.F., de Laat J.A.P.M. & Plomp R. 1982. The effect of noise-induced hearing loss on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Scand Audiol Suppl, 16, 123–133.
   PubMedGoogle 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, 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, 356–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart A. & Phillips D.P. 1997. Word recognition in continuous noise, interrupted noise, and in quiet by normal-hearing listeners at two sensation levels. Scand Audiol, 26, 112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe 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, 2431–2444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summers V. & Molis M.R. 2004. Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: Effects of hearing loss and presentation level. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47, 245–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summers V. & Cord M.T. 2007. Intelligibility of speech in noise at high presentation levels: Effects of hearing loss and frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1130–1137.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swanepoel D.W. & Hall J.W. III. 2010. A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemed J E Health, 16, 181–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 743–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaillancourt V., Laroche C., Mayer C., Basque C., Nali M. et al. 2005. Adaptation of the HINT (hearing in noise test) for adult Canadian Francophone populations. Int J Audiol, 44, 358–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hoesel R.J.M. & Litovsky R.Y. 2011. Statistical bias in the assessment of binaural benefit relative to the better ear. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 4082–4088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Son N. & Jellema I.J. 2011. Analyse van de hoortesten van de Nationale Hoorstichting 2010. Intern rapport Nationale Hoorstichting, Leiden.
   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, 348–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel I., Brug J., Hosli E.J., van der Ploeg C.P.B. & Raat H. 2008. MP3 players and hearing loss: Adolescents perceptions of loud music and hearing conservation. J Pediatr, 152, 400–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Watson C.S., Kidd G.R., Mille, J.D., Smits C. & Humes L.E. 2012. Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: Current use in seven countries and development of a US version. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 757–767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir J.P. 2005. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res, 19, 231–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zokoll M.A., Wagener K.C., Brand T., Buschermohle 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