Proprietary fitting algorithms compared with one another and with generic formulas

Hearing Journal

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 28-38

  Keidser, Gitte ^a   Brew, Christopher ^b   Peck, Andrea ^c  

^a NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES   (Australia)

^b Experimental Aerodynamics Division NAL   (India)

^c CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ALGORITHM; AUDIOGRAPHY; AUDIOLOGY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; LOUDNESS RECRUITMENT; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

EID: 0141632941     PISSN: 07457472     EISSN: 15425991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000293014.56004.ee     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Byrne D, Dillon H, Katsch R, et al.: The NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. JAAA 2001;12(1):37-51.
2. Cornelisse L, Seewald, R, Jamieson D: The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97(3):1854-1864.
3. Ludvigsen C: Basic amplification rationale of a DSP hearing instrument. Hear Rev 1997;4(3):58-64,67,70.
4. Schum DJ: Adaptive speech alignment: A new fitting rationale made possible by DSP. Hear J 1996;49(5):25-30.
5. Phonak: Claro Loudness Perception Profile. Stafa, Switzerland.
6. GN ReSound: Fitting Danalogic: The Reasoning Behind the Technology. Tastrup, Denmark.
7. Ludvigsen C: Audiological background and design rationale of Senso Diva. Widexpress 2001;15.
8. Jenstad LM, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Shantz J: Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: Aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear 1999;20(2):117-126.
9. Jenstad LM, Pumford J, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE: Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits II: Aided loudness measures. Ear Hear 2000;21(1):32-44.
10. Keidser G, Grant F: Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear Hear 2001;22(6):501-515.
11. Dillon H: Hearing Aids. Sydney, Australia: Boomerang Press 2001: 99.
12. Ching TYC, Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D: Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 2001;22:212-224.
13. Smeds K, Leijon A: Threshold-based fitting methods for non-linear (WDRC) hearing instruments: Comparison of acoustic characteristics. Scand Audiol 2001;30:213-222.
14. Byrne D, Murray N: Predictability of the required frequency response characteristic of a hearing aid from the pure-tone audiogram. Ear Hear 1986;7(2):63-70.
15. Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P: Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1990;11(1):40-49.