Audiometric configurations of hearing impaired children in Hong Kong: Implications for amplification

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 24, Issue 17, 2002, Pages 904-913

  Yuen, K C P ^a   McPherson, B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY SYSTEM EXAMINATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HONG KONG; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATHOGENESIS; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRESCRIPTION; PRIMARY SCHOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING; TYMPANOMETRY;

EID: 0037146342     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09638280210148602     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Streppel M, Richling F, Walger M, von Wedel H, Eckel HE. Epidemiology of hereditary hearing disorders in childhood. Scandinavian Audiology 2000; 29: 3-9.
2. Davidson J, Hyde ML, Alberti PW. Epidemiology of hearing impairment in childhood. Scandinavian Audiology 1988; Suppl. 30: 13-20.
3. Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Archives of Otolaryngology 1970; 92: 311-324.
4. American National Standard Institute. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics (ANSI S3.22-1987). New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1987.
5. Norusis MJ. SPSS/PC+ Professional Statistics 6.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1994.
6. Byrne, D, Parkinson, A, Newall, P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear and Hearing 1990; 11: 40-49.
7. McCandless GA. Overview and rationale of threshold-based hearing aid selection procedures. In: M Valente (ed.) Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme Medical, 1994; 1-18.
8. Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Ramji KV, Sinclair ST, Moodie KS, Jamieson DG. DSLv4.0 for Windows: A software implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL[i/o]) Method for fitting linear gain and wide-dynamic-range compression hearing instruments, version 4.1. Hearing Health Care Research Unit, Department of Communication Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1996.
9. Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994; 96: 2108-2120.
10. Bentler RA, Pavlovic CV. Addendum to 'Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research'. Ear and Hearing 1992; 13: 284-286.
11. Liu X, Xu L, Zhang S, Xu Y. Prevalence and aetiology of profound deafness in the general population of Sichuan, China. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 1993; 107: 990-993.
12. Morioka I, Luo WZ, Miyashita K, Takeda, S, Wang, YX, Li SC. Hearing impairment among young Chinese in a rural area. Public Health 1996; 110: 293-297.
13. Humes, LE. Evolution of prescriptive fitting approaches. American Journal of Audiology 1996; 5: 19-23.
14. Berger KW. Hearing aid prescription with severe hearing losses. Audecibel 1988; 37: 6-7.
15. Dyrlund O. Some relationships between hearing aid frequency response and speech discrimination of profoundly deaf children: pilot study. Scandinavian Audiology 1988; 17: 201-205.
16. Boothroyd A. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1984; 27: 134-144.
17. Ross M. Amplification for the profoundly hearing-impaired. In: GA Studebaker, FH Bess, LB Beck (eds) The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report 2. Parkton MD: York Press, 1991; 167-181.
18. American National Standard Institute. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (ANSI S3.79-1993, Draft V3.0). New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1993.
19. Dawson P, Dillon H, Battaglia J. Output limiting compression for the severe-profoundly deaf. Australian Journal of Audiology 1990; 13: 1-12.
20. Dyrlund O, Lundh P. Gain and feedback problems when fitting behind-the-ear hearing aids to profoundly hearing-impaired children. Scandinavian Audiology 1990; 19: 89-95.
21. Ching, TY, Dillon, H, Katch, R, Byrne, D. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear and Hearing 2001; 22: 212-224.
22. Smriga D. Digital signal processing to reduce feedback: technology and test results. Hearing Journal 1993; 46(5): 28-33.
23. French-St George M, Engebretsen A, O'Connell M. Behavioural assessment of CID's benchtop (version 2) digital hearing aid: noise reduction. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 1993; 3: 132-141.
24. Boothroyd A, Eran O. Auditory speech perception capacity of child implant users expressed as equivalent hearing loss. Volta Review 1994; 96: 151-168.
25. Lee KY, Cheung DM, Chan BY, van Hasselt, CA. Cochlear implantation: implications for tone language. Advances in Otorhinolaryngology 1997; 52: 254-257.
26. Byrne D. Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 1992; 3: 67-80.