Methods and Applications of the Audibility Index in Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 81-129

  Amlani, Amyn M ^a   Punch, Jerry L ^a   Ching, Teresa Y C ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; AUDIOMETRY; HEARING AID; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; MODEL; PREDICTION; REVIEW; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TELEPHONE;

EID: 0036428819     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/108471380200600302     Document Type: Article

References (187)

1. Abel SM, Sass-Kortsak A, Naugler JJ. The role of highfrequency hearing in age-related speech understanding deficits. Scand Audiol 29:131-138, 2000.
2. Acoustical Society of America. American standard for noise measurement (Z24.2-1942). J Acoust Soc Am 13:102, 1942.
3. Allen JB, Hall JL, Jeng PS. Loudness growth in 1/2 octave bands (LGOB)-A procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 88:745-753, 1990.
4. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5-1969. Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1969.
5. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.14-1977. Rating Noise with Respect to Speech Interference. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1977.
6. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.21-1978 (R1997). Method for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1978.
7. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.2-1989. Methods for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech Over Communication Systems. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1989.
8. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.6-1989. Specifications for Audiometers. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1989.
9. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5 Draft v.3.1-1993. Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1993.
10. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S1.1-1994 (R1999). Acoustical Terminology. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1994.
11. American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1997.
12. Amlani AM. Directional microphone hearing aids: A meta-analytic perspective. J Am Acad Audiol 12:202-214, 2001.
13. Bacon SP, Gleitman RM. Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses. J Speech Hear Res 35:642-653, 1992.
14. Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation function in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 24:115-134, 1985.
15. Bell ST, Dirks DD, Trine TD. Frequency-importance functions for words in high and low-context sentences. J Speech Hear Res 35:950-959, 1992.
16. Bench RJ, Doyle JM. The BKB/A (Bamford-KowalBench/Australian Version) Sentence Lists for Hearing-Impaired Children. La Trobe University, Victoria, 1979.
17. Bentler RA, Pavlovic CV. Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear 10:58-63, 1989.
18. Beranek LL. The design of speech communication systems. Proc Inst Radio Eng 35:880-890, 1947.
19. Bilger RC. Speech recognition test development. Asha Report 14, 1985.
20. Binnie CA. Bi-sensory articulation factors for normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss patients. J Acad Rehab Audiol 3:43-52, 1973.
21. Binnie CA, Montgomery AA, Jackson PL. Auditory and visual contributions to the perception of consonants. J Speech Hear Res 17:619-630, 1974.
22. Black JW. Equally contributing frequency bands in intelligibility testing. J Speech Hear Res 2:81-83, 1959.
23. Boothroyd A. Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 2:3-10, 1968.
24. Braida LD. Discussion summary V (Chapters 14-17): Hearing aid response characteristic selection strategies. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds: Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980, pp. 424–430.
25. Braida LD, Durlach NI, Lippman RP, Hicks BL, Rabinowitz WM, Reed CM. Hearing aids: A review of past research on linear amplification, amplitude compression and frequency lowering. Asha Monograph Number 19, 1979.
26. Bruel & Kjaer. The modulation transfer function in room acoustics. RASTI: A tool for evaluating auditoria. Technical Review No 3-1985. MA: Bruel & Kjaer, 1985.
27. Burkhard MD, Sachs RM. Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. J Acoust Soc Am 58:214-222, 1975.
28. Byrne D. Effects of bandwidth and stimulus type on most comfortable loudness levels of hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:484-493, 1986a.
29. Byrne D. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:494-504, 1986b.
30. Byrne D. Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 3:67-80, 1992.
31. Byrne D, Cotton S. Preferred listening levels of persons with sensorineural hearing losses. Aust J Audiol 9:7-14, 1987.
32. Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257-265, 1986.
33. Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/ profoundly hearing impaired ear. Ear Hear 11:27-36, 1990.
34. Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NALNL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 12:37-51, 2001.
35. Cavanaugh WJ, Farrell WR, Hirtle PW, Walters GB. Speech privacy in buildings. J Acoust Soc Am 34:475-492, 1962.
36. Ching T, Dillon H, Byrne D. Prediction of speech recognition from audibility and psychoacoustic abilities of hearing impaired listeners. In: Jesteadt W, ed: Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 433–446.
37. Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1128-1140, 1998.
38. Ching TYC, Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 22:212-224, 2001.
39. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. Wide dynamic range compression hearing aids: The DSL[i/o] approach. Hear J 47(10):23-29, 1994.
40. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854-1864, 1995.
41. Cox R, Alexander G. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176-183, 1995.
42. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear 20:306-320, 1999.
43. Cox RM, McDaniel DM. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 32:347-352, 1989.
44. Crain TR, Van Tasell D. The effect of peak clipping on the speech recognition threshold. Ear Hear 15:443-453, 1994.
45. DePaolis RA, Janota CP, Frank T. Frequency importance functions for words, sentences, and continuous discourse. J Speech Hear Res 39:714-723, 1996.
46. Dillon H. Hearing aid evaluation: Predicting speech gain from insertion gain. J Speech Hear Res 36:621-633, 1993.
47. Dillon H. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 52(4):10-16, 1999.
48. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Ellison DE. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners with high-frequency hearing loss: I. The contributions of selected frequency regions. J Acoust Soc Am 85:347-354, 1989a.
49. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 14:275-284, 1984.
50. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Schaefer AB. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 85:355-364, 1989b.
51. Dugal RL, Braida, LD, Durlach NI. Implications of previous research for the selection of frequency-gain characteristics. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds: Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980, pp. 379–403.
52. Duggirala V, Studebaker GA, Pavlovic CV, Sherbecoe RL. Frequency importance functions for a feature recognition test material. J Acoust Soc Am 83:2372-2382, 1988.
53. Dunn HK, White SD. Statistical measurements on conversational speech. J Acoust Soc Am 11:278-288, 1940.
54. Duquesnoy AJ, Plomp R. Effect of reverberation and noise on the intelligibility of sentences in cases of presbycusis. J Acoust Soc Am 68:537-544, 1980.
55. Egan JP. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope 58:955-991, 1948.
56. Erber NP. Interaction of audition and vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli. J Speech Hear Res 12:423-425, 1969.
57. Fabry DA, Van Tasell DJ. Evaluation of an articulationindex based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 33:676-689, 1990.
58. Festen JM, Van Dijkhuizen JN, Plomp P. Considerations on adaptive gain and frequency response in hearing aids. Acta Otolaryngol 469(Suppl):193-201, 1990.
59. Finitzo-Heiber T, Tillman TW. Room acoustic effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 21:440-458, 1978.
60. Fletcher H. The perception of speech sounds by deafened persons. J Acoust Soc Am 24:490-497, 1952.
61. Fletcher H. Speech and Hearing in Communication. New York: Krieger, 1953.
62. Fletcher H, Galt RH. The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am 22:89-151, 1950.
63. Fletcher H, Munson WA. Masking and critical bands. J Acoust Soc Am 9:1-1, 1937.
64. Fletcher H, Steinberg JC. Articulation testing methods. Bell Sys Tech J 8:806-854, 1929.
65. French NR, Steinberg JC. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 19:90-119, 1947.
66. Gates GA, Popelka GR. Neural presbycusis: A diagnostic dilemma. Am J Otol 13:313-317, 1992.
67. Grant KW, Braida LD. Evaluating the articulation index for auditory-visual input. J Acoust Soc Am 89:2952-2960, 1991.
68. Green DM, Birdsall TG. The effect of vocabulary size on articulation score. Technical Memorandum No. 81 and Technical Note AFCRC-TR-57-58, University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group, 1958.
69. Hargus SE, Gordon-Salant S. Accuracy of speech intelligibility index predictions for noise-masked young listeners with normal hearing and for elderly listeners with hearing impairment. J Speech Hear Res 38:234-243, 1995.
70. Hawkins DB, Montgomery AA, Mueller HG, Sedge RK. Assessment of speech intelligibility by hearing-impaired listeners. In: Berglund B, Berglund U, Karlson J, Lindwall T, eds: Noise as a Public Health Problem. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research, 1988, pp. 241–246.
71. Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 17:321-337, 1952.
72. Hogan CA, Turner CW. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432-441, 1998.
73. Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1191-1195, 1995.
74. Holcomb LM, Nerbonne MA, Konkle DF. Articulation index and hearing handicap. J Am Acad Audiol 11:224-229, 2000.
75. Hou Z, Thornton AR. A model to evaluate and maximize hearing aid performance by integrating the articulation index across listening conditions. Ear Hear 15:106-112, 1994.
76. Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. Evaluation of speech transmission channels by using artificial signals. Acustica 25:355-367, 1971.
77. Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility. Acustica 28:66-73, 1973.
78. Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. Experimental verification of the STI: A valid basis for setting indoor noise level criteria. In Rossi G, ed: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Turin, Italy: CSRA, 1983, pp. 477–487.
79. Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 77:1069-1077, 1985.
80. Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM, Plomp R. Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function: I. General room acoustics. Acustica 46:60-72, 1980.
81. Humes LE. An evaluation of several rationales for selecting hearing aid gain. J Speech Hear Disord 51:272-281, 1986.
82. Humes LE. Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing impaired. J Am Acad Audiol 2:59-69, 1991.
83. Humes LE. Some temporal factors affecting speech recognition. In Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds: Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993, pp. 205–220.
84. Humes LE, Coughlin M, Talley L. Evaluation of the use of a new compact disc for auditory perceptual assessment in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 7:419-427, 1996.
85. Humes LE, Dirks DD, Bell TS, Ahlstrom C, Kincaid GE. Application of the articulation index to the recognition of speech by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 29:447-462, 1986.
86. Humes LE, Halling DC. Overview, rationale, and comparison of suprathreshold-based gain prescription methods. In: Valente M, ed: Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme, 1994, pp. 19–37.
87. Humes LE, Riker S. Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index. Ear Hear 13:406-409, 1992.
88. Humes LE, Roberts L. Speech-recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: The contributions of audibility. J Speech Hear Res 33:726-735, 1990.
89. Humes LE, Watson BU, Christensen LA, Cokely CG, Halling DC, Lee L. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 37:465-473, 1994.
90. Jerger J, Jerger S, Oliver T, Pirozzolo F. Speech understanding in the elderly. Ear Hear 10:79-89, 1989.
91. Kamm CA, Dirks DD, Bell TS. Speech recognition and the articulation index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 77:281-288, 1985.
92. Killion M. The SIN report: Circuits haven't solved the hearing-in-noise problem. Hear J 50(10):28-30, 32-32, 34-34, 1997.
93. Killion M, Christensen L. The case of the missing dots: Al and SNR. Hear J 51(5):32-47, 1998.
94. Killion M, Schulerin R, Christensen L, Fabry D, Revit L, Niquette P, Chung K. Real-world performance of an ITE directional microphone. Hear J 51(4):24-26, 30-30, 32-32, 35-35, 36-36, 38-38, 1998.
95. Killion MC. The noise problem: There's hope. Hear Inst 36(11):26-26, 28-28, 30-30, 32-32, 1985.
96. Killion MC. New thinking on hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Seminars in Hearing 23:57-75, 2002.
97. Killion MC, Fikret-Pasa S. The 3 types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility considerations. Hear J 46(11):31-36, 1993.
98. Killion MC, Mueller HG, Pavlovic CV, Humes LE. A is for audibility. Hear J 46(4):29-32, 1993.
99. Knudsen VO. The hearing of speech in auditoriums. J Acoust Soc Am 1:56-82, 1929.
100. Kringlebotn M. A graphical method for calculating the speech intelligibility index and measuring hearing disability from audiograms. Scand Audiol 28:151-160, 1999.
101. Kryter KD. Methods for the calculation of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am 34:1689-1697, 1962a.
102. Kryter KD. Validation of the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am 34:1698-1702, 1962b.
103. Leavitt R, Flexor C. Speech degradation as measured by the rapid speech transmission index (RASTI). Ear Hear 12:115-118, 1991.
104. Leijon A, Eriksson-Mangold M, Beck-Karisen A. Preferred hearing aid gain and bass-cut of speech by hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 77:281-288, 1984.
105. Liberman MC, Dodds LW. Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves. Hear Res 16:55-74, 1984.
106. Licklider JCR, Miller GA. The perception of speech. In: Stevens SS, ed: Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1951, pp. 1040–1074.
107. Lundeen C. Count-the-dot audiogram in perspective. Am J Audiol 5:57-58, 1996.
108. Magnusson L. Predicting the speech recognition performance of elderly individuals with sensorineural impairment: A procedure based on the speech intelligibility index. Scan Audiol 25:215-222, 1996.
109. Magnusson L, Karlsson M, Leijon A. Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification. Ear Hear 22:46-57, 2001.
110. McCandless GA, Lyregarrd PE. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Inst 35(1):16-21, 1983.
111. McCarthy PA. Self-assessment inventories: They're not just for aural rehab anymore. Hear J 45(6):41-43, 1994.
112. McCarthy PA. Self-assessment revisited. Hear J 51(3):10-18, 1998.
113. Moncur JP, Dirks D. Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility in reverberation. J Speech Hear Res 10:186-195, 1967.
114. Moore BCJ. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear 17:133-161, 1996.
115. Moore BCJ. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Brit J Audiol 34:205-224, 2000.
116. Moore BCJ. Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Ampl 5:1-34, 2001.
117. Moore BCJ, Alcaintara JI. The use of psychophysical tuning curves to explore dead regions in the cochlea. Ear Hear 22:268-278, 2001.
118. Mueller HG. Insertion gain measurements. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL, eds: Probe Microphone Measurements: Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Diego: Singular Publishing, 1992, pp. 113–144.
119. Mueller HG, Killion MC. An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J 43(9):14-17, 1990.
120. Murray N, Byrne D. Performance of hearing-impaired and normal hearing listeners with various highfre quency cutoffs in hearing aids. Aust J Audiol 8:21-28, 1986.
121. Musch H, Buus S. Using statistical decision theory to predict speech inteligibility. I. Model structure. J Acoust Soc Am 109:2896-2909, 2001a.
122. Musch H, Buus S. Using statistical decision theory to predict speech intelligibility. II. Measurement and prediction of consonant-discrimination rformance. J Acoust Soc Am 109:2910-2920, 2001b.
123. Nabelek AK, Letowski TR, Tucker FM. Reverberant overlap and self-masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am 86:1259-1265, 1989.
124. Nabelek AK, Nabelek IV. Room acoustics and speech perception. In: Katz J, ed: Handbook of Clinical Audiology (4th Ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1994, pp. 624–637.
125. Nabelek AK, Pickett JM. Monaural and binaural speech perception through hearing aids under noise and reverberation with normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 17:724-739, 1974.
126. Nabelek AK, Robinson PK. Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages. J Acoust Soc Am 71:1242-1248, 1982.
127. Neuman AC, Hochberg I. Children's perception of speech in reverberation. J Acoust Soc Am 73:2145-2149, 1983.
128. Pascoe DP. Clinical implications of nonverbal method of hearing aid selection and fitting. Seminars Speech Hear Res 1:217-229, 1980.
129. Pavlovic CV. Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 75:1253-1258, 1984.
130. Pavlovic CV. Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 82:413-422, 1987.
131. Pavlovic CV. Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. Asha 30 June-July:63-65, 1988.
132. Pavlovic CV. Speech spectrum considerations and speech intelligibility predictions in hearing aid evaluations. J Speech Hear Disord 54:3-8, 1989.
133. Pavlovic CV. Speech recognition and five articulation indexes. Hear Inst 42(9):20-20, 22-22, 23-23, 1991.
134. Pavlovic CV. Band importance functions for audiological applications. Ear Hear 15:100-104, 1994.
135. Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA. Evaluation of some assumptions underlying the articulation index. J Acoust Soc Am 75:1606-1612, 1984.
136. Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 80:50-57, 1986.
137. Payton KL, Uchanski RM, Braida LD. Intelligibility of conversational and clear speech in noise and reverberation for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1581-1592, 1994.
138. Pearson KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. Speech Levels in Various Environments (BBN Report No. 3281). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1976.
139. Pekkarinen E, Viljanen V. Acoustic conditions for speech communication in classrooms. Scand Audiol 20:257-263, 1991.
140. Pluvinage V. Rationale and development of the Resound system. In: Sandlin RE, ed: Understanding Digitally Programmable Hearing Aids. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994, pp. 15–39.
141. Popelka GR, Mason D. Factors which affect the measures of speech audibility with hearing aids. Ear Hear 8(5S):109-118, 1987.
142. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Speech reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 66:1333-1342, 1979.
143. Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 83:2322-2327, 1988.
144. Preves D. Directional microphone use in ITE hearing instruments. Hear Rev 4(7):21-21, 22-22, 24-27, 1997.
145. Rankovic CM. An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res 34:391-402, 1991.
146. Resnick SB, Dubno JR, Hoffnung S, Levitt H. Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. J Acoust Soc Am 58(Suppl):S114-S114, 1975.
147. Ricketts T, Mueller HG. Making sense of directional microphone hearing aids. Am J Audiol 8:117-127, 1999.
148. Ricketts TA, Dittberner AB. Directional amplification for improved signal-to-noise ratio: Strategies, measurement, and limitations. In: Valente M, ed: Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings (2nd ed). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2002, pp. 274–346.
149. Schow RL, Nerbonne MA. Communication screening profile: Use with elderly clients. Ear Hear 3:135-147, 1982.
150. Schum DJ, Matthews LJ, Lee F. Actual and predicted word recognition performance of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 34:636-642, 1991.
151. Skinner MW. Speech intelligibility in noise in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am 67:306-317, 1980.
152. Skinner MW. Hearing Aid Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1988.
153. Souza PE, Bishop RD. Improving audibility with nonlinear amplification for listeners with high-frequency loss. J Am Acad Audiol 11:214-223, 2000.
154. Souza PE, Kitch VJ. Effect of preferred volume setting on speech audibility in different hearing aid circuits. J Am Acad Audiol 12:415-422, 2001.
155. Souza PE, Turner CW. Multichannel compression, temporal cues and audibility. J Speech Hear Res 41:315-326, 1998.
156. Souza PE, Turner CW. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compressed-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12-20, 1999.
157. Souza PE, Yueh B, Sarubbi M, Loovis CF. Fitting hearing aids with the articulation index: Impact on hearing aid effectiveness. J Rehabil R D 37:473-481, 2000.
158. Steele JA, Binnie CA, Cooper WA. Combining auditory and visual stimuli in the adaptive testing of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Disord 43:115-122, 1978.
159. Steeneken HJM, Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am 67:318-326, 1980.
160. Steeneken HJM, Houtgast T. Mutual dependence of octave-band weights in predicting speech intelligibility. Speech Commun 28:109-123, 1980.
161. Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Kalberer A, Creutz T. Situational Hearing-Aid Response Profile for Users (SHARP, v 2.0). Omaha, Nebraska: Boy's Town National Research Hospital, 1994.
162. Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Petersen D, Kopun J, Lewis DL, Hoover BE. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131-138, 1998.
163. Studebaker GA. A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455-462, 1985.
164. Studebaker GA. The effect of equating loudness on audibility-based hearing aid selection procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 3:113-118, 1992.
165. Studebaker GA, McDaniel DM, Sherbecoe RL. Evaluating relative speech recognition performance using the proficiency factor and rationalized arcsine differences. J Am Acad Audiol 6:173-182, 1995.
166. Studebaker GA, Pavlovic CV, Sherbecoe RL. A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. J Acoust Soc Am 81:1130-1138, 1987.
167. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Frequency-importance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word lists. J Speech Hear Res 34:427-438, 1991.
168. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Frequency-importance functions for speech recognition. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds: Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993, pp. 185–204.
169. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Intensity-importance functions for bandlimited monosyllabic words. J Acoust Soc Am 111: 1422-1436, 2002.
170. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, Gilmore C. Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of Saint Louis recording of the NU-6 word test. J Speech Hear Res 36:799-807, 1993.
171. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. Evaluating the Speech Recognition Performance of Hearing-Impaired Subjects. Paper presented at the Lake Arrowhead International Conference on Issues on Advanced Hearing Aid Research, Lake Arrowhead, California, May 30-June 4, 1994.
172. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gwaltney CA. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-thannormal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am 105:2431-2444, 1999.
173. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gray GA. Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition when audibility is held constant. J Am Acad Audiol 8:150-162, 1997.
174. Sumby WH, Pollack I. Visual contributions to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 26:212-215, 1954.
175. Tillman TW, Carhart R. An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No.6. (USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report). Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 1966.
176. Turner CW, Cummings KJ. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 8:150-162, 1999.
177. Turner CW, Robb MP. Audibility and recognition of stop consonants in normal and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 81:1566-1573, 1987.
178. Valente M. Use of microphone technology to improve user performance in noise. Trends in Amplification 4:112-135, 1999.
179. Valente M. Use of microphone technology to improve user performance in noise. In: Sandlin RE, ed: Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification: Technical and Clinical Considerations (2nd ed). San Diego: Singular Thomason Learning, 2000, pp. 247–284.
180. van Rooij JCGM, Plomp R. The effect of linguistic entropy on speech perception in noise in young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 90:2985-2991, 1991.
181. Van Tasell DJ. Hearing loss, speech, and hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 36:228-244, 1993.
182. Villchur E. Comments on “The negative effect of amplitude compression on multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation transfer function” (Plomp. J Acoust Soc Am 83:2322-2327, 1988). J Acoust Soc Am 86:425-427, 1989.
183. Waring CE. Transformation and Reception of Sounds Under Combat Conditions. Office of Scientific Research and Development #TIPU 1130. Washington DC: Office of Naval Research, 1946.
184. Webster J. Interpretations of speech and noise characteristics of NTID learning centers. J Acoust Soc Am 66(Suppl):S37-S37, 1979.
185. Wilde G, Humes LE. Applications of the articulation index to the speech recognition of normal and impaired listeners wearing hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am 87:1192-1199, 1990.
186. Willot JF. Aging and the Auditory System: Anatomy, Physiology, and Psychophysics. San Diego: Singular Publishing Inc, 1991.
187. Zurek PM, Delhorne LA. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1548-1559, 1987.