Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 44, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 574-583

  Hällgren, Mathias ^a,b   Larsby, Birgitta ^a   Lyxell, Björn ^a   Arlinger, Stig ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SOUND INTENSITY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 27744438476     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500190011     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alcantara, J.I., Moore, B.C., Kühnel, V. & Launer, S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34-42.
2. Allén, S. 1970. Frequency dictionary of present-day Swedish (in Swedish: Nusvensk frekvensbok). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
3. Borg, G. 1990. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health, 16, 55-58.
4. CHABA (Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics) 1988. Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 859-895.
5. Cord, M.T., Leek, M.R. & Walden, B.E. 2000. Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 475-483.
6. Davis, A. 2003. Population study of the ability to benefit from amplification and the provision of a hearing aid in 55-74-year-old first-time hearing aid users. Int J Audiol, 42, 2S39-2S52.
7. Duquesnoy, A. J. 1983. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 739-743.
8. Festen, J. M. & Plomp, R. 1990. Effects on fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1725-1736.
9. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. & Elberling, C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77-S85.
10. Girin, L., Schwartz, J-L. & Feng, G. 2001. Audio-visual enhancement of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 3007-3020.
11. Gustafsson, H. A. & Arlinger, S. D. 1994. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 518-529.
12. Hagerman, B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79-87.
13. Hagerman, B. 1984. Clinical measurements of speech reception treshold in noise. Scand Audiol, 13, 57-63.
14. Hagerman, B. & Kinnefors, C. 1995. Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
15. Haskell, G.B., Noffsinger, D., Larson, V.D., Williams, D.W., Dobie, R.A. & Rogers, J.L. 2002. Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear, 23, 301-307.
16. Humes, L.E. 1999. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 26-39.
17. Hygge, S., Rönnberg, J., Larsby, B. & Arlinger, S. 1992. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res, 35, 208-215.
18. Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B. & Arlinger, S. 2001. Evaluation of a cognitive test battery in young and elderly normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 357-370.
19. Larsby, B., Hällgren, M., Lyxell, B. & Arlinger, S. 2005. Cognitive performance and perceived effort in speech processing tasks: effects of different noise backgrounds in normals and in hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 44, 131-143.
20. Larson, V.D., Williams, D.W., Henderson, W.G., Luethke, L.E., Beck, L.B., Noffsinger, D., et al. 2002. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear Hear, 23, 269-276.
21. Lunner, T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49-S58.
22. Lyxell, B., Andersson, U., Borg, E. & Ohlsson, I-S. 2003. Working-memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol, 42, S86-S89.
23. Pichora-Fuller, M.K. 2003. Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol, 42, S59-S67.
24. Plomp, R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech reception threshold of the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146-154.
25. Rönnberg, J. 1990. Cognitive and communicative function: The effect of chronological age. Eur J Cogn Psychol, 2, 253-275.
26. 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 Hear, 23, 280-290.
27. Shoben, E. 1982. Semantic and lexical decisions. In C.R. Puff (ed.), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition. New York: Academic Press.
28. Tun, P. A., O'Kane, G. & Wingfield, A. 2002. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 17, 453-467.
29. Tun, P. A. & Wingfield, A. 1999. One voice too many: Adult age differences in language processing with different types of distracting sounds. J Gerontol, 54B, 317-327.
30. van Rooij, J. C. G. M. & Plomp, R. 1990. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analysis. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 2611-2624.