A digital filterbank hearing aid. Improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective adjustments

Scandinavian Audiology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 169-176

  Lunner, Thomas ^a,c   Hellgren, Johan ^a   Arlinger, Stig ^a   Elberling, Claus ^b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b OTICON A S   (Denmark)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Compression limiting; Digital signal processing; Field test; Filterbank; Multichannel; Prescriptive fitting

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING;

EID: 0030869463     PISSN: 01050397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/01050399709074990     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arlinger S. Uncomfortable Loudness Level (UCLL) for pure tones. In: Arlinger S, ed., Manual of practical audiometry, vol. 1. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd, 1989; 70-2.
2. Bonding P, Elberling C. Loudness summation across frequency under masking and in sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 1980; 19: 57-74.
3. Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257-65.
4. Cornelisse LE, Gagné JP, Seewald RC. Ear level recordings of the long-term average speech spectrum. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 47-54.
5. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 1854-64.
6. Courtois J, Johansen PA, Larsen BV, Christensen PH, Beilin J. Open molds. In: Jensen JH, ed. Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views. 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Stougaard Jensen, 1988; 175-202.
7. Elberling C, Nielsen C. The dynamics of speech and the auditory dynamic range in sensorineural impairment. In: Beilin J, Jensen GR, eds. Recent developments in hearing instrument technology. 15th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Stougaard Jensen, 1993; 99-133.
8. Gabrielsson A, Schenkman B N, Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31: 166-77.
9. Gatehouse, S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1258-68.
10. Gatehouse, S. Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 296-306.
11. Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13: 57-63.
12. Hawkins DB, Walden BE, Montgomery AA, Prosek RA. Description and validation of an LDL Procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 1987; 8: 162-9.
13. ISO 389. Acoustics - Standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone air conduction audiometers. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 1991.
14. Leijon A. Optimization of hearing-aid gain and frequency response for cochlear hearing loss. Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden 1989.
15. Libby ER. State-of-the-art of hearing aid selection procedures. Hear Instr 1985; 36 (1): 30-8, 62.
16. Libby ER. Libby's response to Lyregaard [Letter to the Editor]. Hear Instr 1986; 37 (11): 41-5.
17. Lunner T, Hellgren J. A digital filter bank hearing aid design, implementation and evaluation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP 91), Toronto, Canada, 1991; 5: 3661-4.
18. Lunner T, Arlinger S, Hellgren J. Eight-channel digital filter bank for hearing aid use: preliminary results in monaural, diotic and dichotic modes. Scand Audiol 1993; 38: 75-81.
19. Lyregaard PE. On the practical validity of POGO. Hear Instr 1986; 37(5): 13-7.
20. Lyregaard PE. POGO and the theory behind. In: Jensen JH, ed. Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views. 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Stougaard Jensen, 1988; 81-96.
21. McCandless GA, Lyregaard PE. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 1983; 34 (1): 16-21.
22. Pascoe DP. An approach to hearing aid selection. Hear Instr 1978; 29 (6): 12-6, 36.
23. Schwartz DM, Lyregaard PE, Lundh P. Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss (POGO II). Hear J 1988; 41 (2): 13-7.
24. Skinner MW, Pascoe DP, Miller JD, Popelka GR. Measurements to determine the optimal placement of speech energy within the listener's auditory area: a basis for selecting amplification characteristics. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report. State of the Art-Research Needs. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology 1982; 161-9.
25. Sullivan JA, Levitt H, Hwang JY, Hennessey AM. An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 22-32.