Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings - 1. Patterns of benefit

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 130-152

  Gatehouse, Stuart ^a   Naylor, Graham ^b   Elberling, Claus ^b  

^a MRC INSTITUTE OF HEARING RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b OTICON A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Benefit; Compression; Listening comfort; Satisfaction; Speech intelligibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPRESSION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HEARING AID; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINEAR SYSTEM; MALE; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SELF REPORT; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33644624417     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020500429518     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. British Society of Audiology 1981. Recommended procedure for puretone audiometry using a manually operated instrument. Br J Audiol, 15, 213-216.
2. Bentler, R. & Nelson, J. 1997. Assessing release-time options in a two-channel AGC hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 43-51.
3. Bray, V. & Nilsson, M. 2002. What digital hearing aids can do: Another perspective. Hear J, 55:4 (60-61, 64).
4. Byrne, D. 1982. Theoretical approaches for hearing aid selection. In GA Studebaker & FH Bess (eds.) The Vanderbilt hearing aid report: state of the art - research needs 175-179. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Comtemporary Audiology.
5. Byrne, D. & Dillon, H. 1986. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid (175-179). Ear Hear, 7(4), 257-265.
6. 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. J Am Acad Audiol, 12(1), 37-51.
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. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(3), 1854-1864.
8. Cox, R. 1995. Using loudness data for hearing aid selection: The IHAFF approach. Hear J, 48(2) 10, 39-44.
9. Cox, R.M. 1997. Administration and application of the APHAB. Hear J, 50(4), 32-48.
10. Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1992. Maturation of hearing aid benefit subjective and objective measurements. Ear Hear, 13(3), 131-141.
11. Cox, R. & Alexander, G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear & Hear, 16(2), 176-186.
12. Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1999. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear, 20(4), 306-20.
13. Cox, R.M. & Moore, J.N. 1988. Composite speech spectrum for hearing aid gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res, 31, 102-107.
14. Dillon, H. 1996. Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for how or high intensities, and with what response times. Ear Hear, 17(4), 287-307.
15. Dillon, H. 2001. Hearing aids. Sydney: Boomerang Press.
16. Dreschler, W.A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C. & Westermann, S. 2001. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing aid assessment. Audiology, 40, 148-157.
17. Elberling, C. 1999. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol, 10(5), 248-260.
18. Elberling, C. & Nielsen, C. 1993. The dynamics of speech and the auditory dynamic range in sensorineural hearing impairment. In J. Beilin & G.R. Jensen (eds.) Recent developments in hearing instrument technology. 15th Danavox Symposium., pp. 99-133.
19. Foster, J.R. & Haggard, M.P. 1987. The Four Alternative Auditory Feature test (FAAF) - linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol, 21, 165-174.
20. Gabrielsson, A. & Sjogren, H. 1979. Perceived sound quality of hearing aids. Scand Audiol, 8, 159-169.
21. Gatehouse, S. 1989. Apparent auditory deprivation effects of late onset: the role of presentation level. J Acoust Soc Am, 86(6), 2103-2106.
22. Gatehouse, S. 1993. Role of perceptual acclimatisation in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 4(5), 296-306.
23. Gatehouse, S. 1994. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 15(1), 30-49.
24. Gatehouse, S. 1999. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol, 10(2), 80-103.
25. th Danavox Symposium, 221-233.
26. Gatehouse, S. & Killion, M. 1993. HABRAT: Hearing aid brain rewiring accommodation time. Hear Instrum, 44(10), 29-32.
27. 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.
28. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2006). Linear and nonlinear hearing aids - 2. patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153-171.
29. Gatehouse, S. & Noble, W. 2004. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99.
30. Hansen, M. 2002. Effects of multichannel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear, 23(4), 369-380.
31. International Electrotechnical Commission, 1983. Hearing aids. Part 2: Hearing aids with automatic gain control circuits. IEC 60118-2-1983, Geneva:IEC.
32. Jerlvall, L.B. & Lindblad, A.C. 1978. The influence of attack time and release time on speech intelligibility. A study of the effects of AGC on normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects. Scand Audiol Suppl, 6, 341-353.
33. Keidser, G. 1996. Selecting different amplification for different listening conditions. J Am Acad Audiol, 7(2), 92-104.
34. Keidser, G., Dillon, H. & Byrne, D. 1995. Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics. Ear Hear, 16(6), 562-74.
35. Keidser, G., Dillon, H. & Byrne, D. 1996. Guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 406-418.
36. Keissling, J. 1995. Loudness growth in sensorineural hearing loss - Consequences for hearing aid design and fitting. Audiol. Acoust, 34(2), 82-89.
37. King, A.B. & Martin, M.C. 1984. Is AGC beneficial in hearing aids? Br J Audiol, 18(1), 31-38.
38. Kochkin, S. 2003. Isolating the impact of the volume control on customer satisfaction. Hearing Review, 10(1), 26-35.
39. Launer, S., Holube, I., Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 1996. Categorical loudness scaling in hearing-impaired listeners - Can loudness growth be predicted from the audiogram? Audiol Acoust, 35(4), 156-163.
40. Lunner, T., Hellgren, J., Arlinger, S. & Elberling, C. 1997a. A digital filterbank hearing aid: Predicting user preference and performance for two signal progressing algorithms. Ear Hear, 18(1), 12-25.
41. Lunner, T., Hellgren, J., Arlinger, S. & Elberling, C. 1997b. A digital filterbank hearing aid: Three DSP algorithms - User preference and performance. Ear Hear, 18(5), 373-387.
42. Macrae, J. & Dillon, H. 1986. Gain, frequency response, and maximum output requirements for hearing aids. J Rehab Res Dev, 33(4), 363-376.
43. Moore, B.C.J. 1998. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 22, 93-104.
44. Moore, B.C.J, Glasberg, B.R. & Stone, M.A. 1993. Effect on the speech reception threshold in noise of the recovery time of the compressor in the high-frequency channel of a two-channel aid. Scand Audiol Suppl, 38, 82-91.
45. 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 Hear, 13, 349-370.
46. Moore, B.C.J., Stainsby, T.H., Alcantara, J.I. & Kuhnel, V. 2004. The effect on speech intelligibility of varying compression time constants in a digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 43, 300-409.
47. Muller, T.F., Harris, P.P. & Ellison, J.C. 2004. Effect of Release Time on Preferred Gain and Speech Acoustics. J Am AcadAudiol, 15, 605-615.
48. Nabelek, I.V. & Robinette, L.N. 1977. A comparison of hearing aids with amplitude compression. Audiology, 16(1), 73-85.
49. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), July 2000. Guidance on Hearing Aid Technology. ISBN 1-84257-023-4.
50. Naylor, G. 1997. Technical and audiological factors in the implementation and use of digital signal processing hearing aids. Scand Audiol, 26(4), 223-229.
51. Neuman, A.C., Bakke, M.H., Mackersie, C., Hellman, S. & Levitt, H. 1995. Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: Paired-comparison judgements of quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 98(6), 3182-3187.
52. Neuman, A.C., Bakke, M.H., Mackersie, C., Hellman, S. & Levitt, H. 1998. The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 103(5), 2273-2281.
53. Noble, W. 1998. Self-assessment of Hearing and Related Functions. Whurr Publishers Ltd.
54. Novick, M.L., Bentler, R.A., Dittberner, A. & Flamme, G.A. 2001. Effects of release time and directionality on unilateral and bilateral hearing aid fittings in complex sound fields. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 534-544.
55. Pocock, S J. 1990. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
56. Ricketts, T.A. & Bentler, R.A. 1996. The effect of test signal type and bandwidth on the categorical scaling of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 2281-2287.
57. Schwartz, D., Lyregaard, P. & Lundh, P. 1988. Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss. Hear J, 41(2), 13-17.
58. Schweitzer, H.C. & Causey, G.D. 1977. The relative importance of recovery time in compression hearing aids. Audiology, 16(1), 61-72.
59. Stone, M.A., Moore, B.C.J., Alcantara, J.I. & Glasberg, B.R. 1999. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3603-3619.
60. Surr, R.K., Cord, M.T. & Waiden, B.E. 2001. Response of hearing aid wearers to the absence of a user-operated volume control. Hear J, 54(4), 32-36.
61. Valente, M. & van Vliet, D. 1997. The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends in Amplification, 2, 6-35.
62. Van Toor, T. & Verschuure, H. 2002. Effects of high-frequency emphasis and compression time constants on speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol, 41, 379-394.