The effect of digital phase cancellation feedback reduction systems on amplified sound quality

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 404-416

  Johnson, Earl E ^a   Ricketts, Todd A ^a   Hornsby, Benjamin W Y ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Feedback reduction system; Hearing aid; Paired comparison; Sound quality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL FILTERING; FOURIER TRANSFORMATION; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL DETECTION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHONETICS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 34547806095     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.5.5     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Agnew J. (1996) Acoustic feedback and other audible artifacts in hearing aids. Trends Amplif 1:45-82.
2. 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.
3. Chung K. (2005) Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids: part II. Feedback and the occlusion effect reduction strategies, laser shell manufacturing processes and other signal processing technologies. Trends Amplif 8:125-164.
4. Cox RM, McDaniel DM. (1989) Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 32:347-352.
5. Dillon H. (2001) Hearing Aids. Turramurra, Australia: Boomerang Press.
6. Edwards AL. (1957) Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
7. Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Gombein JA. (1997) Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear Hear 18:294-306.
8. Greenberg JM, Zurek PM, Brantley M. (2000) Evaluation of feedback-reduction algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 108:2366-2376.
9. Hellgren J, Lunner T, Arlinger S. (1999) System identification in hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 105:3481-3496.
10. Howell DC. (2002) Statistical Methods for Psychology. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
11. Kates JM. (1999) Constrained adaptation for feed-back cancellation in hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 106:1010-1019.
12. Kiedser G, Dillion H, Byrne D. (1995) Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics. Ear Hear 16:562-674.
13. Kochkin S. (1997) Subjective measures of satisfaction and benefit: establishing norms. Semin Hear 18:37-48.
14. Kochkin S. (2003) MarkeTrak VI: isolating the impact of the volume control on customer satisfaction. Hear Rev 10:26-35.
15. Kuk F. (1994) Maximum usable real-ear insertion gain with ten earmold designs. J Am Acad Audiol 5:44-51.
16. Maxwell JA, Zurek PM. (1995) Reducing acoustic feedback in hearing aids. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Proc 3:304-313.
17. Punch JL, Parker CA. (1981) Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. J Speech Hear Res 24:366-374.
18. Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. (2005) Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing "digital noise reduction." J Am Acad Audiol 16:270-277.
19. Speaks C. (1992) Introduction to Sound: Acoustics for the Hearing and Speech Sciences. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
20. Thurstone LL. (1927a) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273-286.
21. Thurstone LL. (1927b) Psychophysical analysis. Am J Psychol 38:369-389.
22. Widrow B, McCool JM, Larimore JM, Johnson CR. (1976) Stationary and nonstationary learning characteristics of the LMS adaptive filter. Proc IEEE 64:1151-1162.
23. Wimmer V. (1986) The occlusion effect from earmolds. Hear Instrum 37:19, 56.