Measuring Meaningful Outcomes for Adult Hearing Health Interventions (2025)
Chapter: Appendix D: WIN vs. QuickSIN Table
Appendix D
WIN vs. QuickSIN Table
The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the evidence from studies of the psychometric quality of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test versus the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test.
TABLE D-1 Comparison of the Psychometric Evidence for WIN vs QuickSIN
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
| Normative data (young adult listeners/normal hearing listeners1) |
N = 24 (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) (Wilson et al., 2003) N = 24 (Wilson et al., 2003) N = 96, across four experiments (Wilson, 2003) N = 36 (McArdle et al., 2005) N = 24 (Wilson et al., 2007a) N = 24 (Wilson et al., 2007b) N = 24 (Wilson and Cates, 2008) N = 80, across 3 experiments (Wilson et al., 2012) N = 24 (Wilson and Watts, 2012 |
N = 3 (Killion and Villchur, 1993) N = 20 (Bentler, 2000)2 N = 73, across four experiments (Killion et al., 2004) N = 36 (McArdle et al., 2005) N = 24 (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) |
| Normative data (older adult listeners/listeners with hearing loss3) |
N = 50 (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) N = 24 (Wilson et al., 2003) N = 96, across four experiments (Wilson, 2003) N = 72 (McArdle et al., 2005) N = 120 (Wilson and Burks, 2005) N = 40 (Wilson et al., 2005) N = 48 (Wilson et al., 2007a) N = 72 (Wilson et al., 2007b) N = 411 across two experiments (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) N = 48 (Wilson and Cates, 2008) N = 64, across 3 experiments (Wilson et al., 2012) N = 24 (Wilson and Watts, 2012 |
N = 3 (Killion and Villchur, 1993) N = 20 (Bentler, 2000) N = 26, across four experiments (Killion et al., 2004) N = 72 (McArdle et al., 2005) N = 72 (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) |
| Effects of age and hearing loss |
N = 15 participants per decade, from 20–79 yrs (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) N = 3430: Ages 20–89, new patient examinations in the Audiology Clinic at the VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee (Wilson, 2011) N = 10 young normal hearing, N = 10 old normal hearing, N = 10 old hearing loss (Billings et al., 2023) |
N = 6; three adults in their 20’s and three adults in their 60’s (Killion and Villchur, 1993) N = 5808: Ages 18–101 with a range of wide range of auditory pathologies; patients examined at the Stanford Ear Institute (Fitzgerald et al., 2023) N = 10 young normal hearing, N = 10 old normal hearing, N = 10 old hearing loss (Billings et al., 2023) |
___________________
1 See individual studies for definitions of “young” and “normal hearing.”
2 This study included but was not limited to sentences incorporated in the QuickSIN.
3 See individual studies for definitions of “old” and “hearing loss.”
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
| Psychometric development of test |
NU 6 lists 3, 4 divided into 70-word lists, SNRs −10 to 20 in 5-dB steps (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) NU 6 lists 2, 3, 4 divided into 25-word lists; SNRs −4 to 16 or 4 to 24 in 4 dB steps; multiple babble levels compared; monaural vs binaural conditions compared (Wilson, 2003) NU 6 lists 2, 3, 4 divided into 70-word lists, SNRs 0 to 24 in 4 dB steps −10 and −5 dB SNRs omitted; step size decreased from 5 dB to 4 dB; words time locked to specific babble section; multiple randomizations assessed (Wilson et al., 2003) Two 35-word lists assessed for equivalence (Wilson and Burks, 2005) Reanalyzed data from 573 listeners with hearing loss to establish lists of equivalent difficulty (Wilson and Burks, 2005) Words presented with either descending level or random level order (Wilson et al., 2005) Background manipulated with multi-talker babble versus speech-spectrum noise (Wilson et al., 2007a) Test-retest reliability assessed (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) Standard (forward) babble compared with reversed babble (Wilson et al., 2012) Lists 1, 2, and 3 assessed for equivalence (Wilson and Watts, 2012) |
List equivalency assessed across 12 IEEE sentence lists (Bentler, 2000) IEEE sentences narrowed to 18 lists of six sentences each, plus three practice lists, across a series of four experiments (Killion et al., 2004) List equivalency assessed across 18 IEEE sentence lists (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) Alternative conditions including time-compressed, reverberant speech and a condition with an in-phase noise masker and out of phase speech targets were assessed (Phatak et al., 2018) |
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
| Test-retest reliability assessed |
No learning effect for run 2 versus run 1; test-retest < 1 dB (McArdle et al., 2005) Small (0.4 dB) learning effect across 4 trials, not statistically significant (Wilson and Burks, 2005) 0.3 dB difference from test 1 (12.5 dB S/B) to test 2 (12.8 dB S/B) was statistically significant for two tests 12 months apart (Wilson and McArdle, 2007); intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.88 No significant intra-session differences for two tests 40 days apart (Wilson and McArdle, 2007); the intra-class correlation for the test retest data were 0.89 for the mild hearing loss group and 0.91 for the moderate hearing loss group No significant inter-session differences for two tests within same test session (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) |
Test-retest assessed for three IEEE lists; correlation coefficient was 0.92 for normal hearing listeners and 0.97 for listeners with hearing loss (p’s <0.01) (Bentler, 2000) Averaging results of several lists improved reliability; one list; 95% confidence level = ±2.7 dB, two lists: 95% confidence level = ±1.9 dB, three lists: 95% confidence level = ±1.6 dB (Killion et al., 2004) Learning effect inferred from more participants having better performance on run 2 than run 1; test retest < 1 dB (McArdle et al., 2005) |
| Sound level for the fixed element (WIN background noise, QuickSIN speech targets), as reported by authors4 |
50 dB HL (70 dB SPL) (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) 70 dB SPL (Experiments 1 and 2, Wilson, 2003) 70, 80, and 90 dB SPL (Experiment 3, Wilson, 2003) 70 and 90 dB SPL (Experiment 4, Wilson, 2003) 60 dB HL (Wilson et al., 2003) 80 dB SPL (McArdle et al., 2005) 80 dB SPL (Wilson and Burks, 2005) 80 dB SPL (Wilson et al., 2005) 70 dB SPL (Wilson et al., 2007a) 80 dB SPL (Wilson et al., 2007b) |
80 dB SPL (65 dB HL) and 50 dB SPL (35 dB HL) (Killion and Villchur, 1993) 83 dB SPL and 53 dB SPL (Bentler, 2000) 70 dB HL (Killion et al., 2004) 90 dB SPL (McArdle et al., 2005) 70 dB HL (Walden and Walden, 2004) 90 dB SPL (McArdle et al., 2005) 70 dB HL (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) 100 dB SPL (Wilson et al., 2007b) 70 dB HL (Billings et al., 2023) 70 dB HL, unless levels were required to be increased due to audibility concerns (Fitzgerald et al., 2023) |
___________________
4 Individual studies report levels in either dB SPL or dB HL; this table uses data reported in each manuscript. If authors provided a conversion factor, those are listed here.
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
|
60 dB HL (Experiment 1); 60 dB HL (mild to severe HL) and 70 dB HL (moderate to severe HL) (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) 60 dB HL (Wilson and Cates, 2008) 80 dB SPL (Experiments 1 and 2) (Wilson et al., 2012) 70 dB SPL (Experiment 3) (Wilson et al., 2012) 80 dB SPL (Wilson and Watts, 2012) 60 dB HL (Billings et al., 2023) |
||
| Sound level for the roving element (WIN speech targets, QuickSIN background noise) and SNRs, as reported by authors5 |
40 to 70 dB HL (−10 to 20 dB SNR) (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) 66 to 86 dB SPL (−4 to 16 dB SNR for normal hearing listeners) or 74 to 84 dB SPL (4 to 24 dB SNR for hearing impaired listeners) (Experiments 1 and 2, Wilson, 2003) 70 to 94 dB SPL; 80 to 104 dB SPL, and 90 to 114 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR for all three babble levels) (Experiment 3, Wilson, 2003) 70 to 94 dB SPL or 90 to 114 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR for both babble levels) (Experiment 4, Wilson, 2003) 60 to 84 dB HL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson et al., 2003) 80 to 104 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (McArdle et al., 2005) 80 to 104 dB SPL(0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson and Burks, 2005) 80 to 104 dB SPL(0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson et al., 2005) 70 to 94 dB SPL(0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson et al., 2007a) 80 to 104 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson et al., 2007b) |
65 to 80 dB SPL or 35 to 50 dB SPL (0 to 15 dB SNR) (Killion and Villchur, 1993) 68 to 83 dB SPL or 38 to 53 dB SPL (0 to 15 dB SNR) (Bentler, 2000) 45 to 70 dB HL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (Killion et al., 2004) 45 to 70 dB HL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (Walden & Walden, 2004) 65 to 90 dB SPL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (McArdle et al., 2005) 45 to 70 dB HL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) 75 to 100 dB SPL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (Wilson et al., 2007b) 45 to 70 dB HL (0 to 25 dB SNR) (Billings, 2023) |
___________________
5 Individual studies report levels in either dB SPL or dB HL; this table uses data reported in each manuscript. If authors provided a conversion factor, those are listed here.
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
|
60 to 84 dB HL (Experiment 1); 60 to 84 dB HL (mild to severe HL) and 70 to 94 dB HL (moderate to severe HL) (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) 60 to 84 dB HL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson and Cates, 2008) 80 to 104 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Experiments 1 and 2) (Wilson et al., 2012) 70 to 78 dB SPL (0 and 4 dB SNR) (Experiment 3) (Wilson et al., 2012) 80 to 104 dB SPL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Wilson and Watts, 2012) 60 to 84 dB HL (0 to 24 dB SNR) (Billings, 2023) |
||
| Monaural vs binaural presentation6 |
Monaural (Wilson and Strouse, 2002) Binaural (Experiments 1–3) or both binaural and monaural with masking (Experiment 4); Binaural thresholds lower (better) than monaural thresholds (~1 dB) (Wilson, 2003) Binaural (Wilson et al., 2003) Monaural (McArdle et al., 2005) Monaural (Wilson and Burks, 2005) Monaural (Wilson et al., 2005) Monaural (Wilson et al., 2007a) Monaural (Wilson et al., 2007b) Monaural (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) Binaural (Wilson and Cates, 2008) Monaural (Wilson et al., 2012) |
Binaural (Killion and Villchur, 1993) Binaural (N = 37) and Monaural (N = 3) (Bentler, 2000) Binaural (N = 41) and Monaural (N = 5) (Killion et al., 2004) Monaural (McArdle et al., 2005) Monaural (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) Monaural (Wilson et al., 2007b) |
___________________
6 If authors did not explicitly state testing was monaural or binaural, testing mode is not reported. Binaural testing typically provides a statistically significant advantage over monaural testing when outcomes are directly compared.
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark test comparisons (Benchmark tests are listed) |
QuickSIN (McArdle et al., 2005); mean 50% point on QuickSIN and WIN were not significantly different QuickSIN, BKB-SIN, and HINT (Wilson et al., 2007b); QuickSIN and WIN were more difficult than BKB-SIN and HINT (more semantic content in the latter tests) QuickSIN, Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S), and Coordinate Response Measure (CRM) (Billings et al., 2023); WIN was the most difficult, followed by QuickSIN; LiSN-S and SRM scores were better than WIN and QuickSIN SPRINT (Wilson and Cates, 2008); SPRINT and WIN were significantly correlated (r = −0.81, p < 0.01) Digits in Noise (McArdle et al., 2005); approx. 16–17 dB difference in SNR (closed set vs open set) Digits in Noise (Wilson et al., 2006); approx. 15–19 dB difference in SNR (closed set vs open set) |
WIN (McArdle et al., 2005); mean 50% point on QuickSIN and WIN were not significantly different WIN, BKB-SIN, and HINT (Wilson et al., 2007b); QuickSIN and WIN were more difficult than BKB-SIN and HINT (more semantic content in the latter tests) WIN, Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences (LiSN-S), and Coordinate Response Measure (CRM) (Billings et al., 2023); WIN was the most difficult, followed by QuickSIN; LiSN-S and SRM scores were better than WIN and QuickSIN |
| Correlation with subjective rating of listening difficulty |
Statistically significant relationship with difficulty rating (rho = 0.673; p<0.001) (McArdle et al., 2005) No significant relationships detected with difficulty rating (Wilson et al., 2005) No significant relationships with difficulty rating (Wilson et al., 2006) |
Statistically significant relationship with difficulty rating (rho = 0.571; p<0.001) (McArdle et al., 2005) QuickSIN SNR loss accounted for a significant amount of variance in SSQ12-Speech5 score (Fitzgerald et al., 2024) |
| Test duration |
Average test time was 3:33 (Wilson et al., 2005) Less than 2 min per list (McArdle et al., 2005) Typically less than 2.5 min per list (Wilson and Burks, 2005) |
A QuickSIN score obtained in 1 min from a single list is accurate to ±2.7 dB at the 95% confidence level (Killion et al., 2004) ~55 sec per list (McArdle and Wilson, 2006) |
| WIN: Maintains the level of the babble (60 dB HL), varies background speech level (60–84 dB HL) in 4 dB steps (0–24 dB SNR range); uses NU-6 words as basis | QuickSIN: Maintains the speech level (70 dB HL), varies the babble level (70–95 dB HL) in 5 dB steps (0–25 dB SNR range); uses IEEE sentences as basis | |
|---|---|---|
| Critical Difference | 3.1–3.5 dB (Wilson and McArdle, 2007) |
Critical differences varied with List and hearing status (Bentler, 2000) 1.96 dB (Killion et al., 2004, summary of unpublished data presented at a conference) 3.9 dB with one list per condition; 1.9 dB with four lists per condition; 1.4 dB with eight lists per condition (Killion et al., 2004) |
| Use Assessing Evidence of Benefit |
Statistically significant improvement (1.3 dB) in WIN threshold for group treated with FX322 but not placebo group (McLean et al., 2021) Statistically significant improvement on WIN with remote microphone use in children with cochlear implants (34% vs 65%) (Mehrkian et al., 2019) |
Amplification improved aided performance in some test conditions (Killion and Villchur, 1993) Amplification improved aided performance for some participants (Killion and Niquette, 2000, based on unpublished data shared by Bentler and Duve) SNR loss was statistically significantly smaller (4.6 dB vs 6.3 dB) during testing of the aided QuickSIN versus testing of the unaided QuickSIN (p<0.01) (Walden and Walden, 2004) SNR loss was statistically significantly smaller (5.75 dB vs 7.9 dB) during testing of the aided QuickSIN versus testing of the unaided QuickSIN (p = 0.03) (Mendel, 2007) Contrast between aided QuickSIN score actual performance) and patient perception of performance is the basis of the Revised Performance-Perceptual Test (revised-PPT) (Ou and Wetmore, 2020) No significant benefits shown on QuickSIN after implant with Envoy Esteem device (Kraus et al., 2011) |
NOTES: IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; NU-6 = Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6.
REFERENCES
Bentler, R. A. 2000. List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the speech in noise test. American Journal of Audiology 9(2):84–100.
Billings, C. J., T. M. Olsen, L. Charney, B. M. Madsen, and C. E. Holmes. 2023. Speech-in-noise testing: An introduction for audiologists. Paper read at Seminars in Hearing.
Fitzgerald, M. B., S. P. Gianakas, Z. J. Qian, S. Losorelli, and A. C. Swanson. 2023. Preliminary guidelines for replacing word-recognition in quiet with speech in noise assessment in the routine audiologic test battery. Ear and Hearing 44(6):1548–1561.
Fitzgerald, M. B., K. M. Ward, S. P. Gianakas, M. L. Smith, N. H. Blevins, and A. P. Swanson. 2024. Speech-in-noise assessment in the routine audiologic test battery: Relationship to perceived auditory disability. Ear and Hearing 45(4):816–826.
Killion, M. C., and E. Villchur. 1993. Kessler was right - partly: But SIN test shows some aids improve hearing in noise. The Hearing Journal 46(9):31–35.
Killion, M. C., and P. A. Niquette. 2000. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient’s SNR loss? The Hearing Journal 53(3):46–48.
Killion, M. C., P. A. Niquette, G. I. Gudmundsen, L. J. Revit, and S. Banerjee. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(4 Pt 1):2395–2405.
Kraus, E. M., J. A. Shohet, and P. J. Catalano. 2011. Envoy esteem totally implantable hearing system: Phase 2 trial, 1-year hearing results. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 145(1):100–109.
McArdle, R. A., and R. H. Wilson. 2006. Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN lists. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 17(3):157–167.
McArdle, R. A., R. H. Wilson, and C. A. Burks. 2005. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 16(9):726–739; quiz 763–764.
McLean, W. J., A. S. Hinton, J. T. J. Herby, A. N. Salt, J. J. Hartsock, S. Wilson, D. L. Lucchino, T. Lenarz, A. Warnecke, N. Prenzler, H. Schmitt, S. King, L. E. Jackson, J. Rosenbloom, G. Atiee, M. Bear, C. L. Runge, R. H. Gifford, S. D. Rauch, D. J. Lee, R. Langer, J. M. Karp, C. Loose, and C. LeBel. 2021. Improved speech intelligibility in subjects with stable sensorineural hearing loss following intratympanic dosing of FX-322 in a phase 1b study. Otology & Neurotology: Official Publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 42(7):e849–e857.
Mehrkian, S., Z. Bayat, M. Javanbakht, H. Emamdjomeh, and E. Bakhshi. 2019. Effect of wireless remote microphone application on speech discrimination in noise in children with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 125:192–195.
Mendel, L. L. 2007. Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. American Journal of Audiology 16(2):118–129.
Ou, H., and M. Wetmore. 2020. Development of a revised performance-perceptual test using quick speech in noise test material and its norms. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 31(03):176–184.
Phatak, S. A., B. M. Sheffield, D. S. Brungart, and K. W. Grant. 2018. Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments: Effects of sensorineural hearing loss. Ear and Hearing 39(3):449–456.
Walden, T. C., and B. E. Walden. 2004. Predicting success with hearing aids in everyday living. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 15(05):342–352.
Wilson, R. H. 2003. Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 14(09): 453–470.
Wilson, R. H. 2011. Clinical experience with the Words-in-Noise test on 3430 veterans: Comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22(7):405–423.
Wilson, R. H., and A. Strouse. 2002. Northwestern University auditory test no. 6 in multitalker babble: A preliminary report. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 39(1).
Wilson, R. H., and C. A. Burks. 2005. Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: A clinic protocol. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 42(6):839–852.
Wilson, R. H., and R. McArdle. 2007. Intra- and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18(10): 813–825.
Wilson, R. H., and W. B. Cates. 2008. A comparison of two word-recognition tasks in multitalker babble: Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT) and Words-in-Noise test (WIN). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 19(7):548–556.
Wilson, R. H., and K. L. Watts. 2012. The Words-in-Noise test (WIN), list 3: A practice list. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 23(02):092–096.
Wilson, R. H., H. B. Abrams, and A. L. Pillion. 2003. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 db to 0 db signal to babble. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 40(4).
Wilson, R. H., C. A. Burks, and D. G. Weakley. 2005. Word recognition in multitalker babble measured with two psychophysical methods. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 16(08):622–630.
Wilson, R. H., C. A. Burks, and D. G. Weakley. 2006. Word recognition of digit triplets and monosyllabic words in multitalker babble by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 17(06):385–397.
Wilson, R. H., C. S. Carnell, and A. L. Cleghorn. 2007a. The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 18(6):522–529.
Wilson, R. H., R. A. McArdle, and S. L. Smith. 2007b. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50(4):844–856.
Wilson, R. H., C. P. Trivette, D. A. Williams, and K. L. Watts. 2012. The effects of energetic and informational masking on the Words-in-Noise test (WIN). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 23(07):522–533.
