Assessing aspects of auditory handicap by means of pupil dilatation

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 155-164

  Kramer, Sophia E ^a   Kapteyn, Theo S ^a   Festen, Joost M ^a   Kuik, Dirk J ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Assessment; Auditory handicap; Effort; Pupil dilatation; Speech reception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MENTAL TASK; MYDRIASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

ADULT; AROUSAL; ATTENTION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; REFERENCE VALUES; REFLEX, PUPILLARY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 0030966557     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/00206099709071969     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Hétu R, Riverin L, Lalande N, Getty L, St-Cyr C. Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. Br J Audiol 1988; 22: 251–264
2. Demorest M E, Erdman S A. Scale composition and item analysis of the communication profile for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29: 515–535
3. Stephens D, Hétu R. Impairment disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Audiology 1991; 30: 185–200
4. WHO. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. World Health Organisation, Geneva 1980
5. Janisse M P. Pupillometry: the Psychology of the Pupillary Response. John Wiley, Washington 1977
6. Heemstra M L. Efficiency of human information processing. A model of cognitive energetics. Thesis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam 1988
7. Hess E H, Polt J M. Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem solving. Science 1964; 143: 1190–1192
8. Kahneman D, Beatty J. Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science 1966; 154: 1583–1585
9. Wright P, Kahneman D. Evidence for alternative strategies of sentence retention. Q J Exp Psychol 1971; 23: 197–213
10. Hoeks B. The pupillary response as a measure of mental processing load. Thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands 1995
11. Plomp R, Mimpen A M. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol 1979; 18: 43–52
12. Festen J M, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88(4)1725–1736
13. Kramer S E, Kapteyn T S, Festen J M, Tobi H. Factors in subjective hearing disability. Audiol 1995; 34: 311–320
14. Kramer S E, Kapteyn T S, Festen J M, Tobi H. The relationships between self-reported hearing disability and measures of auditory disability. Audiol 1996; 35: 277–287
15. Miettinen O S. Theoretical Epidemiology Principles of Occurrence Research in Medicine. John Wiley, Washington 1985
16. Dixon W J. BMDP Statistical Software. University Press of California, California 1992
17. Gatehouse S, Gordon J. Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 63–68
18. Rakerd B, Seitz P F, Whearty M. Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 97–106