The effect of repeated measurements and working memory on the most comfortable level in the ANL test

References

• Adams E.M., Gordon-Hickey S., Moore R.E. & Morlas H. 2010. Effects of reverberation on acceptable noise level measurements in younger and older adults. Int J Audiol, 49, 832–838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman D.G. 1991. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 1983. Working memory. Philos Trans R Soc, 302, 311–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 1996. Exploring the central executive. Q J Exp Psychol A, 49, 5–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. J Commun Disord, 36, 189–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. & Hitch G. 1974. Working memory. In: G.A. Bower (ed.) Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–90.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley A., Thomson N. & Buchanan M. 1975. Word length and the structure of short-term memory. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 14, 575–589.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley A.D. 1986. Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauman N. & Ventry I.M. 1983. Effect of a pretest listening exposure on the ascending-descending gap at most comfortable loudness levels. Ear Hear, 4, 102–103.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beaton D.E., Boers M. & Wells G.A. 2002. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol, 14, 109–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie R.C. 1982. Comfortable speech listening levels: Effects of competition and instruction. Am J Otol, 3, 192–199.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie R.C. & Culibrk J. 1980. Effects of a competing message on the speech comfortable loudness level for two instructional sets. Ear Hear, 1, 242–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie R.C. & Himes B.E. 1984. Comfortable loudness levels for speech: Effects of signal-to-noise ratios and instructions. J Aud Res, 24, 213–229.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie R.C., Zentil A. & Svihovec D.A. 1982. Effects of white noise on the most comfortable level for speech with normal listeners. J Aud Res, 22, 71–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger K.W., Hagberg E.N., Varavvas D.M. & Vottero D.M. 1982. Comparison of hearing threshold level and most comfortable loudness level in hearing-aid prescription. Ear Hear, 3, 30–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bland J.M. & Altman D.G. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brännström K.J., Holm L., Kastberg T. & Olsen S.O. 2014. The acceptable noise level: The effect of repeated measurements. Int J Audiol, 53, 21–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brännström K.J., Lantz J., Holme Nielsen L. & Olsen S.O. 2012a. Acceptable noise level with Danish, Swedish, and non-semantic speech materials. Int J Audiol, 51, 146–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brännström K.J., Zunic E., Borovac A. & Ibertsson T. 2012b. Acceptance of background noise, working memory capacity, and auditory evoked potentials in subjects with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 542–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Aligner 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
• Christen R. & Byrne D. 1980. Preferred listening levels for bands of speech in relation to hearing aid selection. Scand Audiol, 9, 3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman M. & Carpenter A.C. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 19, 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Della Sala S., Gray C., Baddeley A., Aleman N. & Wilson L. 1999. Pattern span: A tool for unwelding visuo-spatial memory. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1189–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirks D.D. & Kamm C. 1976. Psychometric functions for loudness discomfort and most comfortable loudness levels. J Speech Hear Res, 19, 613–627.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elberling C., Ludvigsen C. & Lyregaard P.E. 1989. DANTALE: A new Danish speech material. Scand Audiol, 18, 169–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engle R.W., Tuholski S.W., Laughlin J.E. & Conway A.R. 1999. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. J Exp Psychol Gen, 128, 309–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin C.A. Jr., Thelin J.W., Nabelek A.K. & Burchfield S.B. 2006. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 141–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C., Nabelek A.K., Burchfield S.B. & Thelin J.W. 2005a. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 228–236.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C., Plyler P.N., Thelin J.W. & Hedrick M.S. 2007. The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 878–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C., Thelin J.W., Plyler P.N., Nabelek A.K. & Burchfield S.B. 2005b. Effect of stimulant medication on the acceptance of background noise in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 677–686.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gathercole S.E. & Pickering S.J. 2000. Working memory deficits in children with low achievements in the national curriculum at 7 years of age. Br J Educ Psychol, 70 (Pt. 2), 177–194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gordon-Hickey S., Adams E., Moore R., Gaal A., Berry K. et al. 2012. Intertester reliability of the acceptable noise level. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 534–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon-Hickey S. & Moore R.E. 2008. Acceptance of noise with intelligible, reversed, and unfamiliar primary discourse. Am J Audiol, 17, 129–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkrider A.W. & Tampas J.W. 2006. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 667–676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochberg I. 1975. Most comfortable listening for the loudness and intelligibility of speech. Audiology, 14, 27–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holube I., Fredelake S., Vlaming M. & Kollmeier B. 2010. Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol, 49, 891–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibertsson T. 2009. Cognition and Communication in Children/adolescents with Cochlear Implant. Doctoral dissertation Lund: Dept. of Clinical Science, Section of Logopedic, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• IEC 1998a. IEC 60318-1. Electroacoustics - Simulators of human head and ear - Part 1: Ear simulator for the calibration of supra-aural earphones. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
   Google Scholar
• IEC 1998b. IEC 60318-2. Electroacoustics - Simulators of human head and ear - Part 2: An interim acoustic coupler for the calibration of audiometric earphones in the extended high-frequency range. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 1998. ISO 8253-1. Acoustics: Audiometric test methods part 1: Basic pure-tone air- and bone-conduction threshold audiometry. International Organization for Standardization 8253-1.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 2004. ISO 389-8. 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 389-8.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 2006. ISO 389-5. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 5: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones in the frequency range 8 kHz to 16 kHz. International Organization for Standardization 389-5.
   Google Scholar
• Kopra L.L. & Blosser D. 1968. Effects of method of measurement on most comfortable loudness level for speech. J Speech Hear Res, 11, 497–508.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore R., Gordon-Hickey S. & Jones A. 2011. Most comfortable listening levels, background noise levels, and acceptable noise levels for children and adults with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 286–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Freyaldenhoven M.C., Tampas J.W., Burchfield S.B. & Muenchen R.A. 2006. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 626–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Tampas J.W. & Burchfield S.B. 2004. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47, 1001–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Tucker F.M. & Letowski T.R. 1991. Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 679–685.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nichols A.C. & Gordon-Hickey S. 2012. The relationship of locus of control, self-control, and acceptable noise levels for young listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 51, 353–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen S.O. & Brännström K.J. 2014. Does the acceptable noise level (ANL) predict hearing aid use? Int J Audiol, 53, 2–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen S.O., Lantz J., Nielsen L.H. & Brännström K.J. 2012a. Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 51, 678–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen S.O., Nielsen L.H., Lantz J. & Brannstrom K.J. 2012b. Acceptable noise level: repeatability with Danish and non-semantic speech materials for adults with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 51, 557–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen S.Ø., Nielsen L.H., Lantz J. & Brännström K.J. 2013. Intertester reliability of the acceptable noise level. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 241–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plyler P.N., Alworth L.N., Rossini T.P. & Mapes K.E. 2011. Effects of speech signal content and speaker gender on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 50, 243–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plyler P.N., Madix S.G., Thelin J.W. & Johnston K.W. 2007. Contribution of high-frequency information to the acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Am J Audiol, 16, 149–156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Punch J., Joseph A. & Rakerd B. 2004a. Most comfortable and uncomfortable loudness levels: Six decades of research. Am J Audiol, 13, 144–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Punch J., Rakerd B. & Joseph A. 2004b. Effects of test order on most comfortable and uncomfortable loudness levels for speech. Am J Audiol, 13, 158–163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Repovs G. & Baddeley A. 2006. The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139, 5–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sammeth C.A., Birman M. & Hecox K.E. 1989. Variability of most comfortable and uncomfortable loudness levels to speech stimuli in the hearing impaired. Ear Hear, 10, 94–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu-Chen L., Lindenberger U. & Sikström S. 2001. Aging cognition: From neuromodulation to representation. Trends Cogn Sci, 5, 479–486.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wall L.G. & Gans R.E. 1984. Test-retest reliability of a forced-choice procedure for determining most comfortable loudness level for speech. Ear Hear, 5, 118–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wass M., Ibertsson T., Lyxell B., Sahlen B., Hallgren M. et al. 2008. Cognitive and linguistic skills in Swedish children with cochlear implants: Measures of accuracy and latency as indicators of development. Scand J Psychol, 49, 559–576.
   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
• Ventry I.M. & Johnson J.I. 1978. Evaluation of a clinical method for measuring comfortable loudness for speech. J Speech Hear Disord, 43, 149–159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ventry I.M. & Woods R.W. 1971. Most comfortable loudness for pure tones, noise, and speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 1805–1813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y.H., Stangl E., Pang C. & Zhang X. 2014. The effect of audiovisual and binaural listening on the acceptable noise level (ANL): Establishing an ANL conceptual model. J Am Acad Audiol, 25, 141–153.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar