Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test

Objectives: The Turkish matrix sentence test, TURMatrix, was developed for precise, internationally comparable speech intelligibility testing. Design: The TURMatrix comprises a base matrix of ten well-known Turkish names, numbers, adjectives, objects, verbs, from which syntactically fixed sentences were randomly composed. Test conduction may be in an open-set (standard), or closed-set response format. Homogeneity in intelligibility of the test material was optimized by applying level adaptations (maximal ± 3 dB) based on word-specific speech reception thresholds (SRTs). Test list equivalence was verified and reference values were determined. Study sample: Thirty-eight native listeners of Turkish with normal hearing. Results: After training, mean SRT and slope of the final test lists were − 8.3 ± 0.2 dB SNR and 14.1 ± 1.0%/dB, respectively (fixed SNR measurements; inter-list variability). For adaptive measurements, average across listeners was − 7.2 ± 0.7 dB SNR in the open-set and − 7.9 ± 0.7 dB SNR in the closed-set response format. Mean SRT for adaptive measurements in the open-set response format in quiet was 20.3 ± 4.1 dB. Individual SRTs in quiet correlated more closely with audiograms than with SRTs in noise. Conclusions: The TURMatrix was developed according to European standards and provides reliable speech intelligibility measurements in noise and quiet.

[1]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  How much does language proficiency by non-native listeners influence speech audiometric tests in noise? , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[3]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Talker- and language-specific effects on speech intelligibility in noise assessed with bilingual talkers: Which language is more robust against noise and reverberation? , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[4]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[5]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Development of the Russian matrix sentence test , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[6]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[7]  G. Kırkım,et al.  Development of a Turkish Monosyllabic Word Recognition Test for Adults , 2014 .

[8]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment , 2014, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[10]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: A multi-center study , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[11]  Astrid Menz 7 The Turkic languages of Europe , 2011 .

[12]  Johan van der Auwera,et al.  The languages and linguistics of Europe : a comprehensive guide , 2011 .

[13]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  Polish sentence matrix test for speech intelligibility measurement in noise , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[14]  Jon Øygarden Norwegian Speech Audiometry , 2009 .

[15]  The Turkish Hearing in Noise Test , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[16]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[17]  A. Göksel,et al.  Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar , 2004 .

[18]  Kirsten Carola Wagener,et al.  Factors influencing sentence intelligibility in noise , 2004 .

[19]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Ishara Ramkissoon Speech Recognition Thresholds for Multilingual Populations , 2001 .

[22]  Sarah L. Nesbeitt Ethnologue: Languages of the World , 1999 .

[23]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  On the Four Factors Involved in Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 1999 .

[24]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[25]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  K. Zimmer Turkish , 1992, Journal of the International Phonetic Association.

[27]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

[29]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[30]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.