Auditory Reality and Self-Assessment of Hearing

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 113-120

  Noble, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

hearing aids; rehabilitation; self assessment

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; DISABLED PERSON; ECOLOGY; HEARING; HEARING ACUITY; HEARING AID; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REVIEW; SELF CONCEPT; SELF EVALUATION;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS;

EID: 45749106730     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713808316172     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Arlinger, S., Brorsson, B., Lagerbring, C., Leijon, A., Rosenhall, U., & Schersten, T. (2003). Hearing aids for adults-benefits and costs. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.
2. Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Bregman, A.S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories’ new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear & Hearing, 7, 257-265.
5. Byrne, D., & Noble, W. (1998). Optimizing sound localization with hearing aids. Trends in Amplification, 3, 51-73.
6. Dillon, H. (2001). Hearing aids. Sydney, Australia: Boomerang Press.
7. Gatehouse, S. (1991). The role of non-auditory factors in measured and self-reported disability. Acta Otolaryngologica, Suppl. 476, 249-256.
8. Gatehouse, S. (1994). Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear & Hearing, 15(1), 30-49.
9. Gatehouse, S. (1999). Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 80-103.
10. Gatehouse, S., & Akeroyd, M. (2006). Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. International Journal of Audiology, 45(Suppl. 1), S120-S124.
11. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2003). Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Suppl. 1), S77-S85.
12. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2006a). Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-1. Patterns of benefit. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 130-152.
13. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2006b). Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-1. Patterns of candidature. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 153-171.
14. Gatehouse, S., & Noble, W. (2004). The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 43(1), 85-99.
15. Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
16. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
17. Hétu, R., Lalonde, M., & Getty, L. (1987). Psychosocial disadvantages associated with occupational hearing loss as experienced in the family. Audiology, 26, 141-152.
18. Kochkin, S. (1993). MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. The Hearing Journal, 46(1), 20-27.
19. Kochkin, S. (2001). MarkeTrak VI: The VA and direct mail sales spark growth in hearing aid market. The Hearing Review, 8(12), 16-24, 63-65.
20. Kochkin, S. (2002). MarkeTrak VI: 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the U.S. hearing instrument market. The Hearing Review, 9(10), 14-46.
21. Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P.B. (1994). Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: A strong connection. Psychology and Aging, 9(3), 339-355.
22. Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 604-617.
23. Moore, B.C.J. (1996). Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear & Hearing, 17, 133-160.
24. Moore, B.C.J. (1998). Cochlear hearing loss. London : Whurr.
25. Noble, W. (1998). Self-assessment of hearing and related functions. London: Whurr.
26. Noble, W. (2004). Hearing aid outcome measurement: Design issues and options in the self-assessment domain. Zeitschrift für Audiologie, 43(1), 22-28.
27. Noble, W. (2006). Bilateral hearing aids: A review of self-reports of benefit in comparison with unilateral fitting. International Journal of Audiology, 45(Suppl. 1).
28. Noble, W., & Gatehouse, S. (2006). Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 45(3), 172-181.
29. Noble, W., Tyler, R.S., Dunn, C., & Bhullar, N. (2008). Hearing handicap ratings among different profiles of adult cochlear implant users. Ear & Hearing, 29(1), 112-120.
30. O'Mahoney, C.F., Stephens, S.D.G., & Cadge, B.A. (1996). Who prompts patients to consult about hearing loss? British Journal of Audiology, 30, 153-158.
31. Plomp, R. (1978). Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 533-549.
32. Plomp, R. (1994). Noise, amplification, and compression: Considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear & Hearing, 15, 2-12.
33. van den Brink, R.H.S., Wit, H.P., Kempen, G.I.J.M., & van Heuvelen, M.J.G. (1996). Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. British Journal of Audiology, 30, 313-324.
34. World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
35. WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.