ArticleLaryngo- rhino- otologie2025
[In adaptive measurement: Shortened Freiburg monosyllabic test vs. Oldenburg sentence test in noise].
Article in Laryngo- rhino- otologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Freiburg speech test is based on an absolute percentage, non-adaptive measurement method for determining speech intelligibility. Adaptive level control makes it possible to precisely and efficiently determine the 50 % speech intelligibility threshold (50 %-SVS) by individually adjusting the speech sound level. Memmeler et al. already successfully conducted the Freiburg monosyllabic test adaptively in noise (aFBE-S) and developed a shortened version based on existing data. The aim of this study was to test the practical applicability of the shortened aFBE-S with 3, 4 and 5 test lists and to compare it with the adaptive Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA-S).40 otologically healthy subjects (18-30 years) took part. They completed the aFBE-S with 3, 4 and 5 test lists and the OLSA-S in random order. The averaged signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), the time required and the influence of gender and order of measurements were investigated.There were no significant differences between the SNR values of the shortened aFBE-S with 3, 4 and 5 test lists and those of the OLSA-S. There were also no significant differences between the results of the aFBE-S with 3, 4 and 5 test lists. The order and gender did not influence the results. The performance of the shortened aFBE-S was significantly faster than that of the OLSA-S and showed less variability.Compared to the OLSA-S, the shortened aFBE-S with 3, 4 and 5 test lists provides comparable SNR values in a shorter test time. The aFBE-S with 3 test lists proves to be sufficient and can be recommended for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.