Is Normal or Less Than Normal Overall Loudness Preferred by First-Time Hearing Aid Users?

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 159-172

  Smeds, Karolina ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOUDNESS; MALE; NOISE; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TECHNIQUE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS FITTING; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 1842507419     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000120364.13671.E2     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. ANSI-S3.5. (1997). American national standard methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. ANSI-S3.42. (1997). Testing hearing aids with a broad band noise signal. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Byrne, D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: Where to? Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 377-395.
4. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 7, 257-265.
5. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R., & Keidser, G. (2001). NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 37-51.
6. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Tran, K., Arlinger, S., Wilbraham, K., Cox, R., Hagerman, B., Hetu, R., Kei, J., Lui, C., Kiessling, J., Kotby, M. N., Nasser, N. H. A., El Kholy, W. A. H., Nakanishi, Y., Oyer, H., Powell, R., Stephens, D., Meredith, R., Sirinamma, T., Tavartkiladze, G., Frolenkov, G. I., Westermann, S., & Ludvigsen, C. (1994). An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2108-2120.
7. Cornelisse, L. E., Seewald, R. C., & Jamieson, D. G. (1995). The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1854-1864.
8. Cox, R. M. (1995). Using loudness data for hearing aid selection: The IHAFF approach. The Hearing Journal, 48, 39-44.
9. Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (1994). Prediction of hearing aid benefit: The role of preferred listening levels. Ear and Hearing, 15, 22-29.
10. Dillon, H. (2001). Hearing aids. Turramurra: Boomerang Press.
11. Horwitz, A. R. & Turner, C. W. (1997). The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear and Hearing, 18, 1-11.
12. Humes, L. E., Barlow, N. N., Garner, C. B., & Wilson, D. L. (2000). Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 879-892.
13. Humes, L. E., Wilson, D. L., Barlow, N. N., & Garner, C. (2002). Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 772-782.
14. Keidser, G. & Grant, F. (2001). Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear and Hearing, 22, 501-515.
15. Keidser, G. & Grant, F. (2003). Loudness normalization or speech intelligibility maximization? Differences in clinical goals, issues, and preferences. The Hearing Review, January. Available at http://www.hearingreview.com.
16. Killion, M. & Fikret-Pasa, S. (1993). The 3 types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility considerations. The Hearing Journal, 46, 31-36.
17. Leijon, A., Lindkvist, A., Ringdahl, A., & Israelsson, B. (1990). Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday use after prescriptive fitting. Ear and Hearing, 11, 299-305.
18. Ludvigsen, C. (1992). Comparison of certain measures of speech and noise level. Scandinavian Audiology, 21, 23-29.
19. Magnusson, L. (1995). Reliable clinical determination of speech recognition scores using Swedish PB words in speech-weighted noise. Scandinavian Audiology, 24, 217-223.
20. Marriage, J., Moore, B. C. J., & Alcántara, J. I. (in press). Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. International Journal of Audiology.
21. Moore, B. C. J. (2000). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore "normal" loudness for speech at different levels. British Journal of Audiology, 34, 165-177.
22. Moore, B. C. J., Alcántara, J. I., & Marriage, J. (2001). Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally. British Journal of Audiology, 35, 339-353.
23. Moore, B. C. J., Alcántara, J. I., Stone, M. A., & Glasberg, B. R. (1999). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression. British Journal of Audiology, 33, 157-170.
24. Moore, B. C. J., & Glasberg, B. R. (1997). A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neuroscience, 3, 289-311.
25. Moore, B. C. J., Glasberg, B. R., & Stone, M. A. (1999). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. British Journal of Audiology, 33, 241-258.
26. Olsen, S. O., Rasmussen, A. N., Nielsen, L. H., & Borgkvist, B. V. (1999). Loudness perception is influenced by long-term hearing aid use. Audiology, 38, 202-205.
27. Ricketts, T. A. (1996). Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures. Ear and Hearing, 17; 124-132.
28. Shanks, J. E., Wilson, R. H., Larson, V., & Williams, D. (2002). Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 23, 280-290.
29. Smeds, K., & Leijon, A. (2001). Threshold-based fitting methods for non-linear (WDRC) hearing instruments-comparison of acoustic characteristics. Scandinavian Audiology, 30, 213-222.
30. Stelmachowicz, P. G., Dalzell, S., Peterson, D., Kopun, J., Lewis, D. E., & Hoover, B. E. (1998). A comparison of threshold-based strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 19, 131-138.
31. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455-462.
32. Smeds, K. (2000). Cochlear hearing loss and evaluation of prescriptive methods for non-linear hearing aids. Unpublished Licentiate thesis, KTH Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
33. Holst, E. (2002). [Hearing losses among adult hearing aid candidates-a population study.] Unpublished MSc thesis (in Swedish), Lund University, Lund.
34. Groth, J., Jespersen, C., & Dyrlund, O. (1998). Clinical experience of the Danalogic. (Internal report): GN Danavox A/S.
35. Kiessling, J. & Latzel, M. (1998). Clinical experience with Danalogic-the Giessen field trial. (Internal report): GN Danavox A/S.
36. Dillon, H. (1984). A procedure for subjective quality rating of hearing aids. NAL report No. 100. Sydney: National Acoustic Laboratories.
37. Olsen, S. O. (2000). Personal communication.
38. Humes, L. E. (2003). Personal communication.