ArticleHNO2020
[Characterization of a closed-set logatome test : Documentation of audiometric data: discrimination function and reproducibility].
Article in HNO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLogatomes, nonsensical combinations of consonants and vowels, are suitable for a precise capture and analysis of individual phonemes as fundamental modules of speech in audiometric diagnostics.
objectiveThe aim of this prospective study was to capture the audiometric characteristics of a closed-set logatome test. The slope of the discrimination function at the speech reception threshold (SRT) and the reproducibility were analyzed. MATERIAL AND
methodsA set of 102 intensity varied and randomized logatomes were presented in the form of consonant-vowel-consonant to 25 hearing unimpaired adults. The measurements were performed in a free field setting and were each repeated after a 2-week interval. The subjects were requested to repeat the heard logatome in a closed response test of 10 items per sound item on a touchscreen.
resultsThe slope of the mean discrimination function at the SRT was on average 4%/dB; however, the mean discrimination function slope was steeper for the initial consonant than for the final one. The differences of the test and retest results at the SRT showed a standard deviation of 13% for consonants. These differences were normally distributed. There were no significant differences between test and retest.
conclusionThe slope of the discrimination function at the SRT appeared to be shallow but was comparable to established word tests. Finally, there was no evidence of a learning effect in the retest, which emphasizes the low redundancy of the speech material and makes it an attractive complementary option to routine audiometric diagnostics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31690970What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.