The effects of expansion time constants on the objective performance of hearing instrument users

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 614-621

  Plyler, Patrick N ^a   Hill, Ashley Blair ^b   Trine, Timothy D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Starkey Laboratories Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Compression; Expansion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; AUDITORY STIMULATION; HOSPITALIZATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33644792290     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16.8.10     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1991) American National Standard Criteria for Permissible Ambient Noise During Audiometric Testing (ANSI S3.1-1991). New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. American National Standards Institute. (1996) American National Standard Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Boike KT, Souza PE. (2000) Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Hear Res 43:456-468.
4. Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986) The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and the frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 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. J Am Acad Audiol 12:37-51.
6. Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C. (1987) Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 8:119-126.
7. Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C, Pusakulich K. (1988) Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9:198-207.
8. Ghent RM, Nilsson MJ, Bray VH. (2000) Uses of expansion to promote listening comfort with hearing aids. Presented as a poster at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Chicago.
9. Johnson WA. (1993) Beyond AGC-O and AGC-I: thoughts on a new default standard amplifier. Hear J 46:63-69.
10. Killion MC. (1996) Compression distinctions. Hear Rev 3:29-32.
11. Kuk FK. (2002) Considerations in modern multi-channel nonlinear hearing aids. In: Valente M, ed. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 186-187.
12. Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J. (1994) Development of the HINT for the measurement of speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085-1099.
13. Plyler PN, Hill AB, Trine TD. (2005) The effects of expansion on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users. J Am Acad Audiol 16(2):101-113.
14. Ricketts T, Henry P. (2002) Low-frequency gain compensation in directional hearing aids. Am J Audiol 11:1-13.
15. Studebaker GA. (1985) A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455-462.
16. Venema TH. (1998) Programmable and digital hearing aids. In: Venema TH. Compression for Clinicians. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 87-93.
17. Venema TH. (2000) The many faces of compression. In: Sandlin RE, ed. Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 238-239.
18. Villchur E. (1973) Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptual deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 53:1646-1657.