Current Issue
Online First
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF AN ECOLOGICALLY ADAPTED VERSION OF THE TURKISH HEARING-IN-NOISE TEST: NORMATIVE DATA FOR YOUNG ADULTS
1
Ankara Yıldırım Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkiye
2
Audiology, Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkiye
3
Audiology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2025-07-02
Final revision date: 2025-10-25
Acceptance date: 2025-11-07
Online publication date: 2025-12-05
Publication date: 2025-12-05
Corresponding author
J Hear Sci 2025;15(3):45-52
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Recent research highlights the importance of ecological validity in speech-in-noise testing to better reflect real-world listening. In the original Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), speech-shaped noise is presented from one loudspeaker and target sentences from another. This preliminary study introduces an ecologically adapted Turkish HINT (Eco-HINT), which uses running-speech maskers and a three-speaker setup to create a more spatially complex and realistic listening environment. It establishes normative data for young adults with normal hearing.
Material and methods:
Two text-based and two dialogue-based running-speech maskers were created from recordings of two voice actors (Masker Text and Masker Dialogue), at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, recorded using Logic Pro for Mac. These recordings were edited, combined, and integrated into the HINT software. Target sentences were presented at 0°, with maskers at 100° and 260°. Some 42 normal-hearing Turkish adults (23 females, 19 males; aged 18–45 years) were tested with Eco-HINT. The Reception Threshold for Sentences at 50% accuracy (RTS50) and final signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were recorded. Descriptive statistics, sex comparisons, and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) were analysed.
Results:
No significant sex-related differences were found in any test condition (p > 0.05). A percentile distribution is presented in which the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentile values for males are slightly better. Reliability was good for Masker Text SNR [dB], Masker Text RTS50 [dB], and Masker Dialogue SNR [dB] but lower for Masker Dialogue RTS50 [dB].
Conclusions:
The Turkish Eco-HINT provides a promising alternative to the original Turkish HINT. The normative data obtained from young adults will serve as a foundation for future use. Our findings imply that in order to capture the complexity of daily listening challenges, ecological validity must be incorporated. The preliminary Turkish Eco-HINT suggests it can more realistically assess a listener’s functional hearing performance in noisy environments.
Recent research highlights the importance of ecological validity in speech-in-noise testing to better reflect real-world listening. In the original Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), speech-shaped noise is presented from one loudspeaker and target sentences from another. This preliminary study introduces an ecologically adapted Turkish HINT (Eco-HINT), which uses running-speech maskers and a three-speaker setup to create a more spatially complex and realistic listening environment. It establishes normative data for young adults with normal hearing.
Material and methods:
Two text-based and two dialogue-based running-speech maskers were created from recordings of two voice actors (Masker Text and Masker Dialogue), at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, recorded using Logic Pro for Mac. These recordings were edited, combined, and integrated into the HINT software. Target sentences were presented at 0°, with maskers at 100° and 260°. Some 42 normal-hearing Turkish adults (23 females, 19 males; aged 18–45 years) were tested with Eco-HINT. The Reception Threshold for Sentences at 50% accuracy (RTS50) and final signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were recorded. Descriptive statistics, sex comparisons, and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) were analysed.
Results:
No significant sex-related differences were found in any test condition (p > 0.05). A percentile distribution is presented in which the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentile values for males are slightly better. Reliability was good for Masker Text SNR [dB], Masker Text RTS50 [dB], and Masker Dialogue SNR [dB] but lower for Masker Dialogue RTS50 [dB].
Conclusions:
The Turkish Eco-HINT provides a promising alternative to the original Turkish HINT. The normative data obtained from young adults will serve as a foundation for future use. Our findings imply that in order to capture the complexity of daily listening challenges, ecological validity must be incorporated. The preliminary Turkish Eco-HINT suggests it can more realistically assess a listener’s functional hearing performance in noisy environments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Søren Laugesen, Cecilie Naru, and the Interacoustics Research Unit (IRU) team for creating and providing the Eco-HINT software. They are also grateful to Mr. Hürol Erişçi for his continuous technical support and engagement. This study was presented orally at the 9th International İzmir Congress of Medicine, Nursing, Midwifery, and Health Sciences, held 14–16 July 2025.
FUNDING
This research and article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data for this study can be provided upon request from the responsible author. The data is not publicly available due to confidentiality or ethical restrictions.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4084....
2.
Joiko J, Bohnert A, Strieth S, Soli S D, Rader T. The German hearing in noise test. Int. J. Audiol, 2021; 60(11): 927–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
3.
Darouie A, Zamiri Abdollahi F, Joulaie M, Nik Nezhad S, Ahmadi T, Soli S. Development of the Farsi Hearing in Noise Test. Int. J. Audiol, 2020; 59(2): 148–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
4.
Nielsen JB, Dau T. The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 2011; 50(3): 202–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/149920....
5.
Myhrum M, Moen I. The Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol, 2008; 47(6): 377–8.
6.
Wong LL, Soli SD, Liu S, Han N, Huang MW. Development of the Mandarin hearing in noise test (MHINT). Ear Hear, 2007; 28(2): 70S–74S.
7.
Vaillancourt V, Laroche C, Mayer C, Basque C, Nali M, Eriks-Brophy A, et al. Adaptation of the HINT (Hearing in Noise Test) for adult Canadian francophone populations. Int J Audiol, 2005; 44(6): 358–61.
8.
Wong LL, Soli SD. Development of the Cantonese Hearing in Noise Test (CHINT). Ear Hear, 2005; 26(3): 276–89.
9.
Çekiç Ş. Gürültüde Konuşmayi Anlama Testi (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Health Sciences Institute, Audiology and Speech Disorders Program, Ankara, 2006 [in Turkish].
10.
Kartal Özcan E. Çocuklar İçin Gürültüde Konuşmayi Anlama Testi’nin Türkçe Yaşa Özgü Normlarinin Belirlenmesi (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Health Sciences Institute, Audiology and Speech Disorders Program, Ankara, 2022 [in Turkish].
11.
Devesse A, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. AVATAR assesses speech understanding and multitask costs in ecologically relevant listening situations. Ear Hear, 2020; 41(3), 521–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
12.
Coene M, Krijger S, Van Knijff E, Meeuws M, De Ceulaer G, Govaerts PJ. LiCoS: a new linguistically controlled sentences test to assess functional hearing performance. Folia Phoniatr Logop, 2018; 70(2): 90–9.
13.
Edwards B. The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplification, 2007; 11(1): 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/108471....
14.
Jerger J. Ecologically valid measures of hearing aid performance. Starkey Audiology Series, 2009; 1(1): 4.
15.
Neuhoff JG, Neuhoff JG. Ecological Psychoacoustics. Introduction and history. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004, pp. 1–13.
16.
Hadley LV, Brimijoin WO, Whitmer WM. Speech, movement, and gaze behaviours during dyadic conversation in noise. Sci Rep, 2019; 9(1): 10451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598....
17.
Zeni S, Laudanna I, Baruffaldi F, Heimler B, Melcher D, Pavani F. Increased overt attention to objects in early deaf adults: an eye-tracking study of complex naturalistic scenes. Cognition, 2020; 194: 104061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogn....
18.
Decruy L, Vanthornhout J, Francart T. Evidence for enhanced neural tracking of the speech envelope underlying age-related speech-in-noise difficulties. J Neurophysiol, 2019; 122(2), 601–15. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.006....
19.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
20.
Illum NO, Gradel KO. Parents’ assessments of disability in their children using World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, Child and Youth Version. Joined Body Functions and Activity Codes Related to Everyday Life. Clin Med Insights Pediatr, 2017; 11: 1179556517715037. https://doi.org/10.1177/117955....
21.
Lersilp S, Putthinoi S, Lersilp T. Facilitators and barriers of assistive technology and learning environment for children with special needs. Occup Ther Int, 2018; 2028: 3705946. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3....
22.
Jaiswal A, Aldersey HM, Wittich W, Mirza M, Finlayson M. Using the ICF to identify contextual factors that influence participation of persons with deafblindness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2019; 100(12): 2324–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr....
23.
Manchaiah V, Granberg S, Grover V, Saunders GH, Ann Hall D. Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability. Int J Audiol, 2019; 58(9): 565–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
24.
Wu M, Cañete OM, Schmidt JH, Fereczkowski M, Neher T. Influence of three auditory profiles on aided speech perception in different noise scenarios. Trends Hear, 2021; 25: 23312165211023709. https://doi.org/10.1177/233121....
25.
Sørensen AJ, Fereczkowski M, MacDonald E. Task dialog by native-Danish talkers in Danish and English in both quiet and noise. Dataset, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo....
26.
Zaar J, Simonsen LB, Dau T, Laugesen S. Toward a clinically viable spectro-temporal modulation test for predicting supra-threshold speech reception in hearing-impaired listeners. Hear Res, 2023; 427: 108650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hear....
27.
Zaar J, Simonsen LB, Sanchez-Lopez R, Laugesen S. The Audible Contrast Threshold (ACT) test: a clinical spectro-temporal modulation detection test. Hear Res, 2024; 453: 109103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hear....
28.
Zaar J, Simonsen LB, Laugesen S. A spectro-temporal modulation test for predicting speech reception in hearing-impaired listeners with hearing aids. Hear Res, 2024; 443: 108949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hear....
30.
Mönnich AL, Strieth S, Bohnert A, Ernst BP, Rader T. The German Hearing in Noise Test with a female talker: development and comparison with German male speech test. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2023; 280(7): 3157–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405....
31.
Beechey T. Ecological validity, external validity, and mundane realism in hearing science. Ear Hear, 2022; 43(5): 1395–401. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
32.
Goupell MJ, Kan A, Litovsky RY. Spatial hearing and speech intelligibility in bilateral cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 2016; 37(1): 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
33.
Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 2004; 43(2): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
34.
Keidser G, Naylor G, Brungart DS, Caduff A, Campos J, Carlile S, et al. The quest for ecological validity in hearing science: what it is, why it matters, and how to advance it. Ear Hear, 2020; 41 (Suppl 1): 5S–19S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
35.
Keidser G, Naylor G. Editorial: Eriksholm workshop on ecologically valid assessments of hearing and hearing devices. Ear Hear, 2020; 41 (Suppl 1): 1S–4S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.00....
36.
Brody L, Wu YH, Stangl E. A comparison of personal sound amplification products and hearing aids in ecologically relevant test environments. Am J Audiol, 2018; 27(4): 581–93. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_A....
37.
Day GA, Browning GG, Gatehouse S. Benefit from binaural hearing aids in individuals with a severe hearing impairment. British J Audiol, 1988; 22(4): 273–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/030053....
38.
Miller CW, Stewart EK, Wu YH, Bishop C, Bentler RA, Tremblay K. Working memory and speech recognition in noise under ecologically relevant listening conditions: effects of visual cues and noise type among adults with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2017; 60(8): 2310–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_J....
39.
Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD, Freed DJ, Fisher LM. The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, hearing in noise test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index. J Am Acad Audiol, 2012; 23(10): 779–88. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.2....
40.
Soli SD, Wong LLN. Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol, 2008; 47(6): 356–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/149920....
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
