Evaluation of the desired sensation level [input/output] algorithm for adults with hearing loss: The acceptable range for amplified conversational speech

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 793-811

  Jenstad, Lorienne M ^a,b   Bagatto, Marlene P ^a   Seewald, Richard C ^a   Scollie, Susan D ^a   Cornelisse, Leonard E ^a,c   Scicluna, Ron ^a,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c Unitron   (Canada)

^d Argosy Hearing Solutions ^*

^e Etymotic Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CANAL; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSONANT; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; SPEECH;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSTHESIS FITTING; REFERENCE VALUES; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 35848931873     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318157670a     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Alcántara, J. I., Moore, B. C., & Marriage, J. (2004). Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. International Journal of Audiology, 43(1), 3-14.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1998). Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. ASHA Supplement, 40, 18.
3. Bentler, R. A., & Nelson, J. A. (2001). Effect of spectral shaping and content on loudness discomfort. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12(9), 462-470.
4. Boike, K. T., & Souza, P. E. (2000). Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 43, 456-468.
5. Bratt, G. W., & Sammeth, C. A. (1991). Clinical implication of prescriptive formulas for hearing aid selection. In G. A. Studebaker & F. H. Bess, (Eds.), The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II (pp. 23-33). Parkton, MD: York Press.
6. Byrne, D. (1986). Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 494-504.
7. Byrne, D. (1992). Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3(2), 67-80.
8. Byrne, D., & Cotton, S. (1988). Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 31, 178-186.
9. Byrne, D., & Murray, N. (1986). Predictability of the required frequency response characteristic of a hearing aid from the pure-tone audiogram. Ear and Hearing, 7(2), 63-70.
10. Cheesman, M. F., & Jamieson, D. G. (1996). Development, evaluation and scoring of a nonsense word test suitable for use with speakers of Canadian English. Canadian Acoustics, 24(1), 3-11.
11. Cornelisse, L. E., & Jamieson, D. G. (1993). Advanced clinical audiometry: measuring residual auditory capacity using a standard audiometer under computer control. Canadian Acoustics, 21, 103-104.
12. Cornelisse, L. E., Seewald, R. C., & Jamieson, D. G. (1994). Fitting wide dynamic range compression hearing aids: the DSL [i/o] approach. The Hearing Journal, 47(10), 23-29.
13. Cox, R. M. (1982). Functional correlates of electroacoustic performance data. In G. A. Studebaker, & F. H. Bess (Eds.), The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report (pp. 78-84). Parkton, MD: York Press.
14. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Taylor, I. M., & Gray, G. A. (1997). The Contour test of loudness perception. Ear and Hearing, 18(5), 388-400.
15. Dirks, D. D., Ahlstrom, J., & Noffsinger, P. D. (1993). Preferred frequency response for two- and three-channel amplification systems. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 30(3), 305-317.
16. Erber, N. P., & Witt, L. H. (1977). Effect of stimulus intensity on speech perception by deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 42, 271-278.
17. Gabrielsson, A., Hagerman, B., Bech-Kristensen, T., & Lundberg, G. (1990). Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency responses and sound levels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3), 1359-1366.
18. Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. N., & Hagerman, B. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech Hearing Research, 31(2), 166-177.
19. Hawkins, D. B., Prosek, R. A., Walden, B. E., & Montgomery, A. (1987). Binaural loudness summation in the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30(1), 37-43.
20. Hawkins, D. B., Walden, B. E., Montgomery, A., & Prosek, R. A. (1987). Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear and Hearing, 8(3), 162-169.
21. Hornsby, B. W., & Ricketts, T. A. (2003). The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(3), 1706-1717.
22. Horwitz, A. R., Turner, C. W., & Fabry, D. A. (1991). Effects of different frequency response strategies upon recognition and preference for audible speech stimuli. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34(5), 1185-1196.
23. Humes, L. E. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 26-39.
24. Humes, L. E. (2003). Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends in Amplification, 7(2), 41-75.
25. Humes, L. E., & Hackett, T. (1990). Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 1(2), 101-108.
26. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L., Thomas, T., Bess, F. H., Hedley-Williams, A., & Bentler, R. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(1), 65-79.
27. Jenstad, L. M., Pumford, J., Seewald, R. C., & Cornelisse, L. E. (2000). Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits. II. Aided loudness measures. Ear and Hearing, 21(1), 32-44.
28. Jenstad, L. M., Seewald, R. C., Cornelisse, L. E., & Shantz, J. (1999). Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. Ear and Hearing, 20(2), 117-126.
29. Kamm, C., Dirks, D. D., & Mickey, M. R. (1978). Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on loudness discomfort level and most comfortable loudness judgments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21(4), 668-81.
30. Kuk, F. K., & Pape, N. M. (1993). Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36(1), 168-177.
31. Leijon, A., Lindkvist, A., Ringdahl, A., & Israelsson, B. (1991). Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. Ear and Hearing, 12(4), 251-60.
32. Lutman, M. E., & Clark, J. (1986). Speech identification under simulated hearing-aid frequency response characteristics in relation to sensitivity, frequency resolution, and temporal resolution. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(4), 1030-1040.
33. Mackersie, C. L., Crocker, T. L., & Davis, R. A. (2004). Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 498-507.
34. Macrae, J. (1986). Relationships between the hearing threshold levels and aided speech discrimination of severely and profoundly deaf children. NAL Report No. 107. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
35. Moodie, K. S., Seewald, R. C., & Sinclair, S. T. (1994). Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing aid performance in young children. American Journal of Audiology, 3, 23-31.
36. Munro, K. J., & Lutman, M. E. (2005). Sound quality judgments of new hearing instrument users over a 24-week post-fitting period. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 92-101.
37. Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd, A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by younger children and older adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2705-2715.
38. Nozza, R. J. (2000). Thresholds are not enough: understanding how infants process speech has a role in how we manage hearing loss. In R. C. Seewald & J. S. Gravel (Eds.), A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (pp. 47-54). Stäfa Switzerland: Phonak.
39. Palmer, C. V., Nelson, C. T., & Lindley, G. A. (1998). The functionally and physiologically plastic adult auditory system. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 1705-1721.
40. Pearsons, K. S., Bennett, R. L., & Fidell, S. (1977). Speech levels in various noise environments (pp. 3-60). Washington: US EPA.
41. Penn, T. O., Grantham, D. W., & Gravel, J. S. (2004). Simulated conductive hearing loss in children. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15(4), 300-310.
42. Preminger, J. E., & Van Tasell, D. J. (1995a). Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(3), 726-736.
43. Preminger, J. E., & Van Tasell, D. J. (1995b). Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(3), 714-725.
44. Preminger, J. E., Neuman, A. C., Bakke, M. H., Walters, D., & Levitt, H. (2000). An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure. Ear and Hearing, 21, 177-193.
45. Punch, J. L., & Beck, L. B. (1986). Relative effects of low-frequency amplification on syllable recognition and speech quality. Ear and Hearing, 7(2), 57-62.
46. Punch, J. L., & Robb, R. (1992). Prescriptive hearing aid fitting by parameter adjustment and selection. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3(2), 94-100.
47. Punch, J. L., Montgomery, A. A., Schwartz, D. M., Walden, B. E., Prosek, R. A., & Howard, M. T. (1980). Multidimensional scaling of quality judgments of speech signals processed by hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68(2), 458-466.
48. Punch, J. L., Robb, R., & Shovels, A. H. (1994). Aided listener preferences in laboratory versus real-world environments. Ear and Hearing, 15(1), 50-61.
49. Saunders, G. H., & Morgan, D. E. (2003). Impact on hearing aid targets of measuring thresholds in dB HL versus dB SPL. International Journal of Audiology, 42(6), 319-328.
50. Scollie, S., Seewald, R., Cornelisse, L., Moodie, S. T., Bagatto, M., Laurnagaray, D., et al. (2005). The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amplification, 9(4), 159-197.
51. Scollie, S. D., & Seewald, R. C. (2002). Evaluation of electroacoustic test signals. I. Comparison with amplified speech. Ear and Hearing, 23(5), 477-480.
52. Scollie, S. D., Seewald, R. C., Moodie, K. S., & Dekok, K. (2000). Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: comparison to prescriptive targets. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11(4), 230-238.
53. Seewald, R. C., Ross, M., & Spiro, M. K. (1985). Selecting amplification characteristics for young hearing-impaired children. Ear and Hearing, 6(1), 48-53.
54. Skinner, M. W. (1993). Effects of frequency response, bandwidth, and overall gain of linear amplification systems on performance of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. In G. A. Studebaker & I. Hochberg (Eds.), Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance (pp. 133-165). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
55. Smeds, K. (2004). Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear and Hearing, 25(2), 159-172.
56. Smeds, K., Keidser, G., Zakis, J., Dillon, H., Leijon, A., Grant, F., et al. (2006a). Preferred overall loudness. I. Sound field presentation in the laboratory. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 2-11.
57. Smeds, K., Keidser, G., Zakis, J., Dillon, H., Leijon, A., Grant, F., et al. (2006b). Preferred overall loudness. II. Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 12-25.
58. Snik, A. F., & Hombergen, G. C. (1993). Hearing aid fitting of preschool and primary school children. An evaluation using the insertion gain measurement. Scandinavian Audiology, 22(4), 245-250.
59. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28(3), 455-462.
60. Studebaker, G. A. (1992). The effect of equating loudness on audibility-based hearing aid selection procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3, 113-118.
61. Sullivan, J. A., Allsman, C. S., Nielsen, L. B., & Mobley, J. P. (1992). Amplification for listeners with steeply sloping, high-frequency hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 13(1), 35-45.
62. Turner, C. W., Humes, L. E., Bentler, R. A., & Cox, R. M. (1996). A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time. Ear and Hearing, 17 (Suppl.), 14S-28S.
63. van Buuren, R. A., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1995). Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(1), 211-221.
64. Wesselkamp, M., Margolf-Hackl, S., & Kiessling, J. (2001). Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies. Scandinavian Audiology Supplementum, 30(52), 73-75.
65. Boothroyd, A. (2000). There's gold in them Thar hills: mining the PI function. American Auditory Society Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, April 7-8.