Amplification With Digital Noise Reduction and the Perception of Annoying and Aversive Sounds

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 95-104

  Palmer, Catherine V ^a   Bentler, Ruth ^b   Mueller, H Gustav ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

amplification; annoyance; aversiveness; digital noise reduction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ANNOYANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MALE; NOISE REDUCTION; PATIENT COUNSELING; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; SPEECH; TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33747466471     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713806289554     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kochkin S. 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. The Hearing Review. 2002;9(10): 17–21.
2. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VII: customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J. 2005;58(9): 30–38.
3. Kochkin S. Consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. The Hearing Review. 2002;9(11): 22–30.
4. Mueller HG Ricketts TA. Digital noise reduction. Hear J. 2005;58: 10–17.
5. Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 473–484.
6. Bentler RA Chiou L-K. Digital noise reduction: an overview. Trends Amplif. 2006;10: 67–82.
7. Bentler RA Anderson CV Niebuhr D Getta J. A longitudinal study of noise reduction circuits, II: subjective measures. J Sp Hear Res. 1993;36: 820–831.
8. Bentler RA Anderson CV Niebuhr D Getta J. A longitudinal study of noise reduction circuits, I: objective measures. J Sp Hear Res. 1993;36: 808–819.
9. Walden B Surr R Cord M Edwards B Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11: 540–560.
10. Ricketts T Hornsby B. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 270–277.
11. Alcantara J Moore B Kuhnel V Launer S. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Inter J Audiol. 2003;42: 34–42.
12. Nabelek AK. Acceptance of background noise may be key to successful fittings. Hear J. 2005;58(4): 10–15.
13. Freyaldenhoven MC Nabelek AK Burchfield SB Thelin JW. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 228–236.
14. Mueller HG Weber J Hornsby BWY. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif. 2006;10: 83–93.
15. Nabelek AK Freyaldenhoven M Tampas J Burchfield S Muenchen R. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol. In press.
16. Cox R Alexander G. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear. 1995;16: 176–186.
17. Boymans M Dreschler WA. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality. Audiology. 2000;39: 260–268.
18. Cord MT Surr RK Walden BE Olsen L. Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13: 295–307.
19. Surr R Walden B Cord M Olsen L. Influence of environmental factors on hearing aid microphone preference. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13: 208–322.
20. Ricketts T Henry P Gnewikow D. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids. Ear Hear. 2003;24: 424–439.
21. Palmer C Bentler R Mueller HG. Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: II. Self-report outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17: 190–201.
22. Cox R Alexander G Beyer C. Norms for the international outcome inventory for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14: 403–413.
23. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National Standard Specification for Audiometers. New York, NY: ANSI; 1996.
24. Dillon H. NAL-NL1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for nonlinear hearing aids. Hear J. 1999;52: 10–16.
25. Bakke MH Neuman A Levitt H. Evaluation of a hearing aid rating procedure. Poster session presented at: NIDCD/VA Conference on Hearing Aids; September 12, 1995; Washington, DC.
26. Bentler RA Palmer CV Mueller HG. Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid, I: speech perceptions outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17: 179–189.
27. Warner R Bentler R. Threshold of discomfort for complex stimuli: acoustic and sound quality predictors. J Sp Lang Hear Res. 2002;45: 1016–1026.
28. Miedema H Vos H. Noise sensitivity and reactions to noise and other environmental conditions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113: 1492–1504.
29. Walden B Surr R Cord M Pavlovic C. A clinical trail of the ReSound IC4 Hearing Device. Am J Audiol. 1999;8: 65–78.