Abstract
Background: Difficulty understanding speech in background noise is the reason of consultation for most people who seek help for their hearing. With the increased use of speech-in-noise (SpIN) testing, audiologists and otologists are expected to evidence disabilities in a greater number of patients with sensorineural hearing loss. The purpose of this study is to list validated available SpIN tests for the French-speaking population. Summary: A review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Search strategies used a combination of 4 keywords: speech, audiometry, noise, and French. There were 10 validated SpIN tests dedicated to the Francophone adult population at the time of the review. Some tests use digits triplets as speech stimuli and were originally designed for hearing screening. The others were given a broader range of indications covering diagnostic or research purposes, determination of functional capacities and fitness for duty, as well as assessment of hearing amplification benefit. Key Messages: As there is a SpIN test for almost any type of clinical or rehabilitation needs, both the accuracy and duration should be considered for choosing one or the other. In an effort to meet the needs of a rapidly aging population, fast adaptive procedures can be favored to screen large groups in order to limit the risk of ignoring the early signs of forthcoming presbycusis and to provide appropriate audiological counseling.
References
1.
Akeroyd
MA
, Arlinger
S
, Bentler
RA
, Boothroyd
A
, Dillier
N
, Dreschler
WA
, International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. ICRA working group on multilingual speech tests
. Int J Audiol
. 2015
;54
(Suppl 2
):17
–22
. .2.
Belgium National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité, INAMI)
. 2015 Jan
. Available from: https://www.inami.fgov.be/fr/professionnels/sante/audiciens/Pages/circulaires-audicien.aspx.3.
Bergeron
F
, Berland
A
, Fitzpatrick
EM
, Vincent
C
, Giasson
A
, Leung Kam
K
, Development and validation of the FrBio, an international French adaptation of the AzBio sentence lists
. Int J Audiol
. 2019
;58
(8
):510
–5
. .4.
British Society of Audiology
. Practice guidance assessment of speech understanding in noise in adults with hearing difficulties
. 2019
.5.
Brungart
DS
, Simpson
BD
, Ericson
MA
, Scott
KR
. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2001
;110
(3
):2527
–38
. .6.
Carhart
R
, Tillman
TW
. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses
. Arch Otolaryngol
. 1970
;91
(3
):273
–9
. .7.
Clopper
CG
, Pisoni
DB
, Tierney
AT
. Effects of open-set and closed-set task demands on spoken word recognition
. J Am Acad Audiol
. 2006
;17
(5
):331
–49
. .8.
Dodele
L
, Dodele
D
. L’audiométrie vocale en présence de bruit et filetest AVfB
. Cahiers de L’ Audition
. 2000
;13
(6
):15
–22
.9.
Dorman
MF
, Loizou
PC
, Spahr
AJ
, Maloff
E
. A comparison of the speech understanding provided by acoustic models of fixed-channel and channel-picking signal processors for cochlear implants
. J Speech Lang Hear Res
. 2002
;45
(4
):783
–8
. .10.
Duncan
K
, Aarts
N
. A comparison of the HINT and quick SIN tests
. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol
. 2006
;30
.11.
Eisenberg
LS
, Kirk
KI
, Martinez
AS
, Ying
EA
, Miyamoto
RT
. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users
. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
. 2004
;130
(5
):563
–9
. .12.
Epstein
A
, Giolas
TG
, Owens
E
. Familiarity and intelligibility of monosyllabic word lists
. J Speech Hear Res
. 1968
;11
(2
):435
–8
. .13.
Freyman
RL
, Balakrishnan
U
, Helfer
KS
. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2004
;115
(5
):2246
–56
. .14.
Giguère
C
, Lagacé
J
, Ellaham
NN
, Pichora-Fuller
MK
, Goy
H
, Bégin
C
, Development of the Canadian digit triplet test in English and French
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2020
;147
(3
):EL252
. .15.
Hagerman
B
. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise
. Scand Audiol
. 1982
;11
(2
):79
–87
. .16.
HearCom
. D-1-3: protocol for implementation of communication tests in different languages
. 2006
.17.
Hirsh
IJ
, Davis
H
, Silverman
SR
, Reynolds
EG
, Eldert
E
, Benson
RW
. Development of materials for speech audiometry
. J Speech Hear Disord
. 1952
;17
(3
):321
–37
. .18.
Hiyama
K
, Komiyama
S
, Hamasaki
K
. The minimum number of loudspeakers and its arrangement for reproducing the spatial impression of diffuse sound field
. J Audio Engineer Soc
. 2002
;50
(10
):864
.19.
Hughes
RL
, Scott
RJ
. Speech audiometry. tape versus disc recording
. Arch Otolaryngol
. 1967
;86
(2
):175
–8
. .20.
Iliadou
VV
, Ptok
M
, Grech
H
, Pedersen
ER
, Brechmann
A
, Deggouj
N
, A European perspective on auditory processing disorder-current knowledge and future research focus
. Front Neurol
. 2017
;8
:622
. .21.
Jansen
S
, Luts
H
, Wagener
KC
, Frachet
B
, Wouters
J
. The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise
. Int J Audiol
. 2010
;49
(5
):378
–87
. .22.
Jansen
S
, Luts
H
, Wagener
KC
, Kollmeier
B
, Del Rio
M
, Dauman
R
, Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: a multi-center study
. Int J Audiol
. 2012
;51
(3
):164
–73
. .23.
Johnston
KN
, John
AB
, Kreisman
NV
, Hall
JW
III, Crandell
CC
, Johnston
KN
, Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD)
. Int J Audiol
. 2009
;48
(6
):371
–83
. .24.
Kalikow
DN
, Stevens
KN
, Elliott
LL
. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 1977
;61
(5
):1337
–51
. .25.
Killion
MC
, Niquette
PA
, Gudmundsen
GI
, Revit
LJ
, Banerjee
S
. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2004
;116
(4
):2395
–405
. .26.
Kollmeier
B
, Warzybok
A
, Hochmuth
S
, Zokoll
MA
, Uslar
V
, Brand
T
, The multilingual matrix test: principles, applications, and comparison across languages: a review
. Int J Audiol
. 2015
;54
(Suppl 2
):3
–16
. .27.
Lafon
JC
. [Audiometry with the phonetic test]
. Acta Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Belgica
. 1964
;18
:619
–33
.28.
Lagacé
J
. Développement du test de mots dans le bruit: mesure de l'équivalence des listes et données préliminaires sur l'effet d'âge
. Can Acoust
. 2010
;38
(2
):19
–30
.29.
Lagacé
J
, LeBlanc
L
, Boisvert
V
, Arseneau
M
, Breau-Godwin
S
. Mise à jour sur le développement du test de mots dans le bruit
. Can Acoust
. 2013
;41
(2
):65
–72
.30.
Leclercq
F
, Renard
C
, Vincent
C
. Speech audiometry in noise: development of the French-language VRB (vocale rapide dans le bruit) test
. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis
. 2018
;135
(5
):315
–9
. .31.
Leek
MR
. Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research
. Percept Psychophys
. 2001
;63
(8
):1279
–92
. .32.
Luts
H
, Boon
E
, Wable
J
, Wouters
J
. FIST: a French sentence test for speech intelligibility in noise
. Int J Audiol
. 2008
;47
(6
):373
–4
. .33.
Marriage
J
, King
J
, Briggs
J
, Lutman
ME
. The reliability of the SCAN test: results from a primary school population in the UK
. Br J Audiol
. 2001
;35
(3
):199
–208
. .34.
McArdle
RA
, Wilson
RH
, Burks
CA
. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences
. J Am Acad Audiol
. 2005
;16
(9
):726
–4
. .35.
Moher
D
, Liberati
A
, Tetzlaff
J
, Altman
DG
. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
. BMJ
. 2009
;339
:b2535
. .36.
Moore
DR
, Edmondson-Jones
M
, Dawes
P
, Fortnum
H
, McCormack
A
, Pierzycki
RH
, Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40–69 years of age
. PLoS One
. 2014
;9
(9
):e107720
. .37.
Nilsson
M
, Soli
SD
, Sullivan
JA
. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 1994
;95
(2
):1085
–99
. .38.
Nordrum
S
, Erler
S
, Garstecki
D
, Dhar
S
. Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms
. Am J Audiol
. 2006
;15
(1
):81
–91
. .39.
Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie
. La langue française dans le monde, synthèse
: Gallimard
; 2018
. Available from: http://observatoire.francophonie.org/2018/synthese.pdf.40.
Paglialonga
A
, Tognola
G
, Grandori
F
. SUN-test (speech understanding in noise): a method for hearing disability screening
. Audiol Res
. 2011
;1
(1
):e13
. .41.
Paglialonga
A
, Grandori
F
, Tognola
G
. Using the speech understanding in noise (SUN) test for adult hearing screening1
. Am J Audiol
. 2013
;22
(1
):171
–4
. .42.
Paglialonga
A
, Tognola
G
, Grandori
F
. A user-operated test of suprathreshold acuity in noise for adult hearing screening: the SUN (speech understanding in noise) test
. Comput Biol Med
. 2014
;52
:66
–72
. .43.
Plomp
R
, Mimpen
AM
. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 1979
;66
(5
):1333
–42
. .44.
Pollack
I
. Auditory informational masking
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 1975
;57
(S1
):S5
. .45.
Prang
I
, Parodi
M
, Coudert
C
, Legoff
S
, Exter
M
, Buschermöle
M
, Le matrix simplifié français : un outil d'évaluation de l'intelligibilité de la parole dans le bruit
. Eur Ann otorhinolaryngol Head Neck dis
. 2021 Sep
;138
(4
):253
–6
.46.
Pumford
JM
, Seewald
RC
, Scollie
SD
, Jenstad
LM
. Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments
. J Am Acad Audiol
. 2000
;11
(1
):23
–35
.47.
Ricketts
T
, Henry
P
. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid
. Int J Audiol
. 2002
;41
(2
):100
–12
. .48.
Simpson
SA
, Cooke
M
. Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2005
;118
(5
):2775
–8
. .49.
Smits
C
, Kapteyn
TS
, Houtgast
T
. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone
. Int J Audiol
. 2004
;43
(1
):15
–28
. .50.
Smoorenburg
GF
. 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
. 1992
;91
(1
):421
–37
. .51.
Sockalingam
R
, Murrison
R
, Cole
D
, James
S
, Morin
S
, Potter
S
. Comparing SCAN-A scores between speakers of standard Australian English and American English: a preliminary study
. Aust New Zeal J Audiol
. 2004
;26
(2
):110
. .52.
Soli
SD
, Wong
LL
. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the hearing in noise test
. Int J Audiol
. 2008
;47
(6
):356
–61
. .53.
Spahr
AJ
, Dorman
MF
, Litvak
LM
, Van Wie
S
, Gifford
RH
, Loizou
PC
, Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists
. Ear Hear
. 2012
;33
(1
):112
. .54.
Stach
BA
, Davis-Thaxton
ML
, Jerger
J
. Improving the efficiency of speech audiometry: computer-based approach
. J Am Acad Audiol
. 1995
;6
:330
–3
.55.
Taylor
B
. Speech-in-noise tests: how and why to include them in your basic test battery
. Hear J
. 2003
;56
(1
):40
–3
.56.
Theunissen
M
, Swanepoel
de W
, Hanekom
J
. Sentence recognition in noise: variables in compilation and interpretation of tests
. Int J Audiol
. 2009
;48
(11
):743
–57
. .57.
Thornton
AR
, Raffin
MJ
. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable
. J Speech Hear Res
. 1978
;21
(3
):507
–18
. .58.
Vaillancourt
V
, Laroche
C
, Mayer
C
, Basque
C
, Nali
M
, Eriks-Brophy
A
, The Canadian French hearing in noise test
. Int J Audiol
. 2008
;47
(6
):383
–5
. .59.
Vaillancourt
V
, Laroche
C
, Mayer
C
, Basque
C
, Nali
M
, Eriks-Brophy
A
, Adaptation of the hint (hearing in noise test) for adult canadian francophone populations
. Int J Audiol
. 2005
;44
(6
):358
–69
. .60.
Wagener
KC
, Brand
T
. Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters
. Int J Audiol
. 2005
;44
(3
):144
–56
. .61.
Watson
CS
, Kidd
GR
, Miller
JD
, Smits
C
, Humes
LE
. Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: current use in seven countries and development of a US version
. J Am Acad Audiol
. 2012
;23
(10
):757
–67
.62.
Wilson
RH
, McArdle
R
. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system
. J Rehabil Res Dev
. 2005
;42
(4 Suppl 2
):79
–94
. .63.
Zokoll
MA
, Hochmuth
S
, Warzybok
A
, Wagener
KC
, Buschermöhle
M
, Kollmeier
B
. Speech-in-noise tests for multilingual hearing screening and diagnostics1
. Am J Audiol
. 2013
;22
(1
):175
–8
. .64.
Zokoll
MA
, Wagener
KC
, Brand
T
, Buschermöhle
M
, Kollmeier
B
. Internationally comparable screening tests for listening in noise in several European languages: the German digit triplet test as an optimization prototype
. Int J Audiol
. 2012
;51
(9
):697
–707
. .© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
2021
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
