Speech tests as measures of outcome

Scandinavian Audiology, Supplement

Volumn 27, Issue 49, 1998, Pages 54-60

  Gatehouse, Stuart ^a  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Outcome measures; Speech tests

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; ADULT; ARTICLE; COUNSELING; HEARING DISORDER; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; COUNSELING; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0032460502     PISSN: 01078593     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Baer T, Moore BCJ, Gatehouse S. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensonneural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality and response times. J Rebab Res Devel 1993; 30: 49-72.
2. Carhart R. Tests for selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope 1946a; 56: 780-94.
3. Carhart R. Selection of hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol 1946b: 44: 1-18.
4. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Rivera IM. Accuracy of audiometric test room simulations of three real-world listening environments. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 40: 764-72.
5. Foster JR, Haggard MP. (FAAF) An efficient analytical test of speech perception. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 1979; IA3: 9-12.
6. Foster JR, Haggard MP. Introduction to the test manual for FAAF 11. Nottingham: MRC Institute of Hearing Research, 1984.
7. Gatehouse S. Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements. J Speech Pathol Audiol 1993; (Suppl.): 50-7.
8. Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 30-49.
9. Gatehouse S. Outcomes measures for the evaluation of adult hearing aid fittings and services. Sci Tech Rep 1997.
10. Gatehouse S, Brooks D. Pre-fitting counselling in elderly first-time hearing aid users. Br J Audiol 1998 (submitted).
11. Gatehouse S. Acclimatization effects on non-linear hearing aid processing. Ear Hear 1998a (submitted).
12. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile - a client centred instrument for the assessment hearing aid benefit J Am Acad Audiol 1998b (in press).
13. Gatehouse S, ed. Proceedings of the 1st Eriksholm Consensus Conference on Auditory Deprivation and Acclimatization. Ear Hear 1996 (Suppl.).
14. Green R. The uses and misuses of speech audiometry in rehabilitation. In; Martin M, ed. Speech audiometry, 2nd ed. London: Whurr, 1996; 150-75.
15. Hygge S, Ronnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech. and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 208-15.
16. Larsby B, Arlinger S. Speech recognition and just-follow-conversation tasks for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners with different maskers. Audiology 1994; 33: 165-76.
17. Lipsey MW. 'Design Sensitivity' - Statistical power for experimental research. London: Sage, 1990.
18. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. A digital filterbank hearing aid: predicting user preference and performance for two signal processing algorithms. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 12-25.
19. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. A digital filterbank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms - user preference and performance. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 373-87.
20. Moore BCJ, Johnson JS, Clark TM, Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 349-70.
21. Thornton A, Raffin M. Speech discrimination scores modelled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21: 507-18.