A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design

American Journal of Audiology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 39-53

  Humes, Larry E ^a   Humes, Lauren E ^a   Wilson, Dana L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Compression; Elderly; Hearing aids

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PATIENT SELECTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PATIENT SELECTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 16644400498     PISSN: 10590889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2004/007)     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1996). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: Author.
2. Byrne, D., Parkinson, A., & Newall, P. (1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear and Hearing, 11, 40-49.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Cox, R., Alexander, G., Gilmore, C., & Puskalich, K. M. (1988). Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 9, 198-207.
5. Cox, R. M., & McDaniel, D. M. (1989). Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 347-352.
6. Dillon, H. (1999). NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. The Hearing Journal, 52(4), 10-16.
7. Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. N., & Hagerman, B. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 166-177.
8. Gatehouse, S. (1999). Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 80-103.
9. Hawkins, D. B., Walden, B. E., Montgomery, A., & Prosek, R. (1987). Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear and Hearing, 8, 162-169.
10. Hosford-Dunn, H., & Halpern, J. (2001). Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice II: Predictive validity of fitting variables. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 15-36.
11. Humes, L. E. (2003). Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends in Amplification, 7, 41-75.
12. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L. A., Bess, F. H., & Hedley-Williams, A. (1997). A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 666-685.
13. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L. A., Thomas, T., Bess, F. H., Hedley-Williams, A. & Bentler, R. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 65-79.
14. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliot, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1337-1351.
15. Killion, M. C., & Fikret-Pasa, S. (1993). The 3 types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility considerations. The Hearing Journal, 46(11), 31-36.
16. Kochkin, S. (1997). Subjective measures of satisfaction and benefit: Establishing norms. Seminars in Hearing, 18(1), 37-48.
17. Larson, V. D., Williams, D. W., Henderson, W. G., Luethke, L. E., Beck, L. D., Noffsinger, D., et al. (2000). Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 1806-1813.
18. Levitt, H., & Resnick, S. B. (1978). Speech reception by the hearing impaired: Methods of testing and development of materials. Scandinavian Audiology Supplement, 6, 107-129.
19. Moore, B. C. J., & Glasberg, B. R. (1986). A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. Audiology, 25, 210-226.
20. Moore, B. C. J., Johnson, J. S., Clark, T. M., & Pluvinage, V. (1992). Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 13, 349-370.
21. Narendran, M. M., & Humes, L. E. (2003). Reliability and validity of judgments of sound quality in elderly hearing aid wearers. Ear and Hearing, 24, 4-11.
22. Newman, C. W., & Sandridge, S. A. (1998). Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. American Journal of Audiology, 7, 115-128.
23. Pearson, K. S., Bennett, R. L., & Fidell, S. (1977). Speech levels in various noise environments (Report No. EPA-600/1-77-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
24. Ventry, I., & Weinstein, B. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: A new tool. Ear and Hearing, 3, 128-134.
25. Walden, B. E. (1997). Toward a model clinical-trials protocol for substantiating hearing aid user-benefit claims. American Journal of Audiology, 6, 13-24.
26. Walden, B. E., Demorest, M. E. & Hepler, E. L. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 49-56.
27. Walden, B. E., Surr, R. K., Cord, M. T., Edwards, B., & Olson, L. (2000). Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11, 540-560.
28. Yund, W. E., & Buckles, K. M. (1995a). Discrimination of multichannel-compressed speech in noise: Long-term learning in hearing-impaired subjects. Ear and Hearing, 16, 417-427.
29. Yund, W. E., & Buckles, K. M. (1995b). Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1224-1240.
30. Yund, W. E., & Buckles, K. M. (1995c). Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1206-1223.