Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression

British Journal of Audiology

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 157-170

  Moore, B C J ^a   Alcantara J I ^b   Stone, M A ^b   Glasberg, B R ^b  

^a UK   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Compression; Hearing aids; Hearing loss; Loudness; Prescriptive methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 0032806898     PISSN: 03005364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/03005369909090095     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Boothroyd A. Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 1968; 2: 3-10.
2. 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.
3. Byrne D, Dillon H,Tran K et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96: 2108-20.
4. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176-86.
5. French NR, Steinberg JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 1947; 19: 90-119.
6. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79: 1020-33.
7. Goedegebure A, Hulshof M, Maas AJJ, Verschuure J. The effects of syllabic compression on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired. In: Kollmeier B, ed. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, Singapore: World Scientific, 1996; 165-70.
8. ISO 389-7. Acoustics - Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 7: Reference threshold of hearing under free-field and diffuse-field listening conditions. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1996.
9. Killion MC. Hearing aids: Past, present and future: Moving toward normal conversations in noise. Br J Audiol 1997; 31: 141-8.
10. Kollmeier B, Hohmann V. Loudness estimation and compensation employing a categorical scale. In: Manley GA, Klump GM, Köppl C, Fastl H, Oeckinghaus H, eds. Advances in Hearing Research, Singapore: World Scientific Publishers, 1995; 441-51.
11. Laurence RF, Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear aids and two-channel compression hearing aids in the laboratory and in everyday life. Br J Audiol 1983; 17: 31-48.
12. MacLeod A, Summerfield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 29-43.
13. Moore BCJ. How much do we gain by gain control in hearing aids? Acta Otolaryngol 1990; Suppl. 469: 250-6.
14. Moore BCJ. Signal processing to compensate for reduced dynamic range. In: Beilin J, Jensen GR, eds. Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology, Copenhagen: Stougaard Jensen, 1993; 147-65.
15. Moore BCJ, Glasberg B R. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1988; 22: 93-104.
16. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neurosci 1997; 3: 289-311.
17. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. 1. Linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1998; 32: 301-19.
18. Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR. Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multi-channel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1998; 32: 177-95.
19. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1991; 25: 171-82.
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 1992a; 13: 349-70.
21. Moore BCJ, Lynch C, Stone MA. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 1992b; 26: 369-79.
22. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Baer T. A model for the prediction of thresholds, loudness and partial loudness. J Audio Eng Soc 1997; 45: 224-40.
23. Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Stone MA. Benefits of linear amplification and multi-channel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 400-11.
24. Pavlovic C. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 413-22.
25. Pearsons KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranck and Newman, 1976.
26. Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: Considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 2-12.
27. Stone MA, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; (submitted).
28. Verschuure J, Dreschler WA. Dynamic compression in hearing aids. In: Kollmeier B, ed. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, Singapore: World Scientific, 1996; 153-64.