Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: Reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients

References

• Arndt S., Aschendorff A., Laszig R., Beck R., Schild C. et al. 2010. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol, 32(1), 39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland J.M. & Altman D.G. 2010. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 931–936.
   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(6), 2801–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11(2), 79–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Measurement of speech reception threshold: A comparison between two methods. Scand Audiol, Vol. 11, No. 3, 191–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1984. Some aspects of methodology in speech audiometry. Scand Audiol, 21 (suppl.), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. & Kinnefors C. 1995. Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 1, 71–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahlbrock K.H. 1953. Speech audiometry and new word tests. Arch Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd, 162 (5), 394–431.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hanschmann H., Wiehe S., Müller-Mazzotta J. & Berger R. 2010. Speech perception in noise with and without FM technology. HNO, 58(7), 674–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedderich J. & Sachs L. 2011. Reliabilität. Angewandte Statistik: 14th edition. Berlin: Springer, pp. 98–100.
   Google Scholar
• Hernvig L.H. & Olsen S.O. 2005. Learning effect when using the Danish Hagerman sentences (Dantale II) to determine speech reception threshold. Int J Audiol, 44 (9), 509–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hey M., Anft D., Hocke T., Scholz G., Hessel H. et al. 2009. Influence of mixing ratios of a FM-system on speech understanding of CI-users. LRO, 88 (5), 315–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hey M., Vorwerk W., Langer J., Vorwerk U. & Begall K. 2003. Vergleich von Satztests im Störschall bei Cochlea Implantat Patienten. DGA, p.6. ISBN 3-9809869-7-7.
   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 (suppl.), 83.
   Google Scholar
• Hochmair I., Nopp P., Jolly C., Schmidt M., Schösser H. et al. 2006. MED-EL Cochlear implants: State of the art and a glimpse into the future. Trends Amplif, 10 (4), 201–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacob R., Stelzig Y., Nopp P. & Schleich P. 2011. Audiological results with cochlear implants for single-sided deafness. HNO, 59 (5), 453–60.
   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), 958–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenarz T., Stöver T., Buechner A., Lesinski-Schiedat A., Patrick J. et al. 2009. Hearing conservation surgery using the Hybrid-L electrode. Results from the first clinical trial at the Medical University of Hannover. Audiol Neurootol, 14, 1 (suppl.), 22–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Deile J. 2009. Speech intelligibility tests in cochlear implant patients. HNO, 57(6), 580–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Deile J. 2009. Evaluation und Dokumentation. Verfahren zur Anpassung und Evaluation von Cochlear Implantat Sprachprozessoren: 1st edition. Heidelberg: Median-Verlag, pp. 71–145.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J.B. & Dau T. 2011. The Danish hearing-in-noise test. Int J Audiol, 50(3), 202–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick J.F., Busby P.A. & Gibson P.J. 2006. The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif, 10 (4), 175–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rader T., Fastl H. & Baumann U. 2012. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear, 34 (3), 324–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T., Kühnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests in deutscher Sprache I–III: Design, Optimierung und Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol, 38 (1–3), 4–15, 44–56, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K. & Kollmeier B. 2004. Göttinger- und Oldenburger Satztest. Z Audiol, 43 (3), 134–141.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Zokoll M., Berg D., Jansen S., Lyzeng J. et al. 2009. D-1-9: Report on an optimized inventory of speech-based auditory screening & impairment tests for six languages. HearCom FP6–004171, pp. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wesselkamp M., Kliem K. & Kollmeier B. 1992. Erstellung eines optimierten Satztests in deutscher Sprache. In: B. Kollmeier (ed.) Moderne Verfahren der Sprachaudiometrie. Heidelberg: Median-Verlag, pp. 330–343.
   Google Scholar
• von Ilberg C.A., Baumann U., Kiefer J., Tillein J. & Adunka O.F. 2011. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: A review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol, 6 (suppl.) 2, 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Yund E.W. & Woods D.L. 2010. Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception. Ear Hear, 31(6), 769–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar