ArticleHNO2020
[Recognition function for the Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise with a signal to noise ratio (SNR) of 5 dB].
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [In adaptive measurement: Shortened Freiburg monosyllabic test vs. Oldenburg sentence test in noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2025Article
- [Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Freiburg monosyllabic test (FBE) has been an important German speech audiometry test for years. It is nowadays also used to assess the benefit of hearing aids in noise (FBE-S). This study investigates hearing in noise using the FBE at different sound pressure levels and a signal to noise ratio of 5 dB to generate a recognition curve.
methodsIn autumn 2018, 60 normal-hearing German native speakers (age 18-31 years) participated in the study at the military hospital in Hamburg. Using one FBE test list, speech intelligibility was measured from sound pressure levels of 15 to 90 dB in 5‑dB steps with a noise level 5 dB lower in each case. Subsequently, the average of all intelligibility rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.
resultsParticipants comprised 29 female and 31 male subjects. Average age was 24.32 years (±3.29 years). The fixed effects analysis of variance with recognition as the dependent variable demonstrated a highly significant correlation between the levels of sounds/noise and the intelligibility of speech (p < 0.0001). The average intelligibility rates with 95% CI and the frequency distributions were presented tabularly and graphically.
conclusionIn comparison to the normative curve, the FBE‑S recognition curve is shifted to the right. The average values of the FBE‑S reach the saturation area at a volume of 70/65 dB with an intelligibility rate of 90% (for comparison: the point of saturation for 100% intelligibility of the FBE without noise is reached at 55 dB). Using these averaged values of the FBE‑S enables better interpretation of individual results without and with hearing aids. In the future, the benefit of hearing aids should be measured at lower noise levels than it is today.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32390058What 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.