Development and efficacy of a frequent-word auditory training protocol for older adults with impaired hearing

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 613-627

  Humes, Larry E ^a   Burk, Matthew H ^a   Strauser, Lauren E ^a   Kinney, Dana L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; LANGUAGE TEST; MALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PRESBYCUSIS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349137171     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b00d90     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. American National Standards Institute (1999). American National Standard Maximum Permissible Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms, ANSI S3.1. New York: American National Standards Institute.
2. American National Standards Institute (2004). American National Standard Specifications for Audiometers, ANSI S3.6. New York: American National Standards Institute
3. Amos, N. E., & Humes, L. E. (2007). Contribution of high frequencies to speech recognition in quiet and noise in listeners with varying degrees of high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50 , 819-834.
4. Bell, T.S. & Wilson, R.W. (2001). Sentence materials controlling word usage and confusability. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 514-522.
5. Bentler, R. A. (2005). Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: A systematic review of evidence. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 477-488.
6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., et al. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
7. Burk, M. H., & Humes, L. E. (2007). Effects of training on speech-recognition performance in noise using lexically hard words. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 25-40.
8. Burk, M. H., & Humes, L. E. (2008). Effects of long-term training on aided speech-recognition performance in noise in older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 759-771.
9. Burk, M. H., Humes, L. E., Amos, N. E., et al. (2006). Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 27, 263-278.
10. Cord, M. T., Surr, R. K., Walden, B. E., et al. (2004). Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 353-364.
11. Davis, H., & Silverman, S. R. (1978). Hearing and Deafness (4th ed.). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
12. Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., et al. (2001). International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology, 40, 148-157.
13. Foo, C., Rudner, M., Ronnberg, J., et al. (2007). Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol, 18 , 553-566.
14. French, N. R., Carter, C. W., Jr., & Koenig, W., Jr. (1931). The words and sounds of telephone conversations. Bell Syst Tech J, 9, 290-324.
15. Gantz, B. J., Turner, C., & Gfeller, K. E. (2006). Acoustic plus electric speech processing: Preliminary results of a multicenter clinical trial of the Iowa/Nucleus Hybrid implant. Audiol Neurootol, 11 (Suppl 1), 63-68.
16. George, E. L. J., Festen, J. M., & Houtgast, T. (2006). Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2295-2311.
17. George, E. L. J., Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2007). Auditory and nonauditory factors affecting speech reception in noise by older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2362-2375.
18. Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Sig Proc, 517-520.
19. Hetzel, L., & Smith, A. (2001). The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000 (pp, 1-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
20. Humes, L. E. (1991). Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing impaired. J Am Acad Audiol, 2, 59-70.
21. Humes, L. E. (2002). Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1112-1132.
22. Humes, L. E. (2005). Do "auditory processing" tests measure auditory processing in the elderly? Ear Hear, 26, 109-119.
23. Humes, L. E. (2007). The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590-603.
24. Humes, L. E. (2008). Issues in the assessment of auditory processing in older adults. In A. T. Cacace & D. J. McFarland (Eds). Current Controversies in Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) (pp, 121-150). San Diego: Plural Publishing.
25. Humes, L. E., Ahlstrom, J. B., Bratt, G. W., et al. (2009). Studies of hearing aid outcome measures in older adults: A comparison of technologies and an examination of individual differences. Sem Hearing, 30, 112-128.
26. Humes, L. E., Barlow, N. N., Garner, C. B., et al. (2000). Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 43, 879-892.
27. Humes, L. E., Burk, M. H., Coughlin, M. P., et al. (2007). Auditory speech recognition and visual text recognition in younger and older adults: Similarities and differences between modalities and the effects of presentation rate. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 283-303.
28. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L. A., Bess, F. H., et al. (1997). A comparison of the benefit provided by a well-fit linear hearing aid and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain. J Speech Hear Res, 40 , 666-685.
29. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L. A., Bess, F. H., et al. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression hearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 65-79.
30. Humes, L. E., Garner, C. B., Wilson, D. L., et al. (2001). Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 44, 469-486.
31. Humes, L. E., Humes, L. E., & Wilson, D. L. (2004). A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range- compression amplification by means of an independent-group design. Am J Audiol, 13, 39-53.
32. Humes, L. E., Lee, J. H., & Coughlin, M. P. (2006). Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 2926-2937.
33. Humes, L. E., Wilson, D. L., Barlow, N. N., et al. (2002a). Measures of hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 772-782.
34. Humes, L. E., Wilson, D. L., Barlow, N. N., et al. (2002b). Longitudinal changes in hearing-aid satisfaction and usage in the elderly over a period of one or two years after hearing-aid delivery. Ear Hear, 23, 428-437.
35. ISO (2000). ISO-7029, Acoustics-Statistical Distribution of Hearing Thresholds as a Function of Age. Basel, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.
36. Jin, S.-H., & Nelson, P. B. (2006). Speech perception in gated noise: The effects of temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 3097-3108.
37. Kochkin, S. (1993a). MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part I. Hear J, 46, 20-27.
38. Kochkin, S. (1993b). MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part II. Hear J, 46, 26-31.
39. Kochkin, S. (1993c). MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part III. Hear J, 46, 36-37.
40. Kochkin, S. (2000). MarkeTrak V: Consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J, 53 , 38-55.
41. Kochkin, S. (2005). MarkeTrak VII: Hearing loss population tops 31 million. Hear Rev, 12, 16-29.
42. Larson, V. D., Williams, D. W., Henderson, W. G., et al. (2000). Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA
43. Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. J Am Med Assoc, 284, 1806-1813.
44. Lee, C.J. (2003). Evidence-based selection of word frequency lists. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 27, 170-173.
45. Lee, L. W., & Humes, L. E. (1993). Evaluating a speech-reception threshold model for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 2879-2885.
46. Lindfield, K. C., Wingfield, A., & Goodglass, H. (1999). The role of prosody in the mental lexicon. Brain Lang, 68, 312-317.
47. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42 (Suppl 1), S49-S58.
48. 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. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 539-552.
49. Nordrum, S., Erler, S., Garstecki, D., et al. (2006). Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms. Am J Audiol, 15, 81-91.
50. Owens, E., Benedict, M., & Schubert, E. D. (1972). Consonant phonemic errors associated with pure-tone configurations and certain kinds of hearing impairment. J Speech Hear Res, 15, 308-322.
51. Pichora-Fuller, K. M., & Singh, G. (2006). Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif, 10, 29-59.
52. Ronnberg, J., Rudner, M., Foo, C., et al. (2008). Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47 (Suppl 2), S171-S177.
53. Schoenborn, C. A., & Marano, M. (1988). Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey. Vital Health Stat 10, 1-233.
54. Simpson, A., Hersbach, A. A., & McDermott, H. J. (2005). Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol, 44, 281-292.
55. Smeeth, L., Fletcher, A. E., Ng, E. S., et al. (2002). Reduced hearing ownership, and use of hearing aids in elderly people in the UK-The MRC trial of the assessment and management of older people in the community: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 359, 1466-1470.
56. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455-462.
57. Sweetow, R., & Henderson-Sabes, J. (2004). The case for LACE: Listening and auditory communication enhancement training. Hear J, 57, 32-40.
58. Sweetow, R., & Palmer, C. (2005). Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: A systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 498-508.
59. Sweetow, R. W., & Sabes, J. (2006). The need for and development of an adaptive listening and communication enhancement (LACE) program. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 538-558.
60. Turner, C. W., & Hurtig, R. R. (1999). Proportional frequency compression for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 877-886.
61. Walden, B., Surr, R., Cord, M., et al. (2004). Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 365-396.
62. Ward, J. A., Lord, S. R., Williams, P., et al. (1993). Hearing impairment and hearing aid use in women over 65 years of age: Cross-sectional study of women in a large urban community. Med J Aust, 159, 382-384.
63. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., et al. (1995). The Educator's Word Frequency Guide. New York, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.