T Memmeler1, R Schönweiler2, B Wollenberg1, J Löhler3,4. 1. Campus Lübeck, Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland. 2. Campus Lübeck, HNO-Klinik, Sektion für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland. 3. Campus Lübeck, Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland. loehler@hno-aerzte.de. 4. Wissenschaftliches Institut für angewandte HNO-Heilkunde des Deutschen Berufsverbandes der HNO-Ärzte e. V. (WIAHNO), Maienbeeck 1, 24576, Bad Bramstedt, Deutschland. loehler@hno-aerzte.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whereas sentence tests are commonly performed using an adaptive procedure, this method has not yet been transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test, the most important word test. When using different procedures, a comparison of results between sentence and word tests is not possible. Therefore, an adaptive procedure which has proven itself in sentence tests was transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise. The results of the new procedure were compared to the standard of sentence tests, i.e., the Oldenburg sentence test. METHODS: The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test and the Oldenburg sentence test were applied in 40 otologically normal subjects in a randomized order. Results were analyzed with respect to time requirements, possible gender differences, the influence of test order, and correlation of test results. RESULTS: The time required for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test was significantly higher than for the Oldenburg sentence test. No significant impact of gender or test order could be shown. The mean signal-to-noise ratio for 50% speech discrimination of the Oldenburg sentence test was significantly smaller than for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test. No correlation could be shown between the results of the two tests CONCLUSION: The Freiburg monosyllabic test can not only be used for quantifying discrimination loss in percentage terms, but also to measure the 50% speech recognition threshold with an adaptive algorithm. However, the procedure of the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test is more time consuming than that of the Oldenburg sentence test. Concerning a possible missing correlation between the results for 50% speech discrimination, further studies with hearing-impaired persons are needed.
BACKGROUND: Whereas sentence tests are commonly performed using an adaptive procedure, this method has not yet been transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test, the most important word test. When using different procedures, a comparison of results between sentence and word tests is not possible. Therefore, an adaptive procedure which has proven itself in sentence tests was transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise. The results of the new procedure were compared to the standard of sentence tests, i.e., the Oldenburg sentence test. METHODS: The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test and the Oldenburg sentence test were applied in 40 otologically normal subjects in a randomized order. Results were analyzed with respect to time requirements, possible gender differences, the influence of test order, and correlation of test results. RESULTS: The time required for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test was significantly higher than for the Oldenburg sentence test. No significant impact of gender or test order could be shown. The mean signal-to-noise ratio for 50% speech discrimination of the Oldenburg sentence test was significantly smaller than for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test. No correlation could be shown between the results of the two tests CONCLUSION: The Freiburg monosyllabic test can not only be used for quantifying discrimination loss in percentage terms, but also to measure the 50% speech recognition threshold with an adaptive algorithm. However, the procedure of the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test is more time consuming than that of the Oldenburg sentence test. Concerning a possible missing correlation between the results for 50% speech discrimination, further studies with hearing-impairedpersons are needed.
Authors: B Kollmeier; T Lenarz; J Kießling; J Müller-Deile; T Steffens; H v Wedel; W H Döring; M Buschermöhle; K Wagener; T Brand Journal: HNO Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: J Löhler; B Akcicek; M Pilnik; K Saager-Post; S Dazert; S Biedron; J Oeken; D Mürbe; J Löbert; R Laszig; T Wesarg; C Langer; S Plontke; T Rahne; U Machate; R Noppeney; K Schultz; P Plinkert; S Hoth; M Praetorius; P Schlattmann; E F Meister; H W Pau; K Ehrt; R Hagen; W Shehata-Dieler; M Cebulla; L E Walther; A Ernst Journal: HNO Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: J Löhler; B Akcicek; B Wollenberg; R Schönweiler; L Verges; Ch Langer; U Machate; R Noppeney; K Schultz; J Kleeberg; B Junge-Hülsing; L E Walther; P Schlattmann; A Ernst Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Jan Löhler; Mario Cebulla; Wafaa Shehata-Dieler; Stefan Volkenstein; Christiane Völter; Leif Erik Walther Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 5.594