A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Ching, Teresa Y C ^a,b   Scollie, Susan D ^c   Dillon, Harvey ^a,b   Seewald, Richard ^c  

^a NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES   (Australia)

^b Hearing CRC ^*  (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Amplification; Children; Cross over comparison; Double blind study; DSL v.4.1; Hearing aid prescription; NAL NL1

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DECISION MAKING; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILD; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRESCRIPTIONS; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 76449090251     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992020903148020     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bench R.J. & Doyle J. 1979. The Bamford-Kowal-Bench/Australian version (BKB/A) Standard Sentence Lists. Carlton, Victoria: Lincoln Institute.
2. Byrne D. 1986. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 80(2), 494-503.
3. Byrne D. & Dillon H. 1986. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear, 7, 257-265.
4. 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.
5. Byrne D., Parkinson A. & Newall P. 1991. Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. In: G. Studebaker, F. Bess, L. Beck Parkton (eds.): The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. M.D: York Press, 295-300.
6. Cameron S., Dillon H. & Newall P. 2006. The listening in spatialised noise test: An auditory processing disorder study. J Am Acad Audiol 17, 304-318.
7. Ching T.Y.C., Newall P. & Wigney D. 1997. Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. Scand Audiol, 26, 219-222.
8. Ching T.Y.C., Newall P. & Wigney D. 1999. Clinical use of paired comparisons to evaluate hearing aid fitting of severely/profoundly hearing impaired children. Aus New Zeal J Audiol, 21, 51-63.
9. Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 2001. Children's amplification needs: Same or different from adults? Scand Audiol, 30, Suppl 53, 54-60.
10. Ching T.Y.C. & Hill M. 2007. The Parents' Evaluation of Aural/oral performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol, 18(3), 221-237.
11. Ching T.Y.C., Hill M. & Dillon H. 2008. Effect of variations in hearing-aid frequency response on real-life functional performance of children with severe or profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 47, 8, 461-475.
12. Ching T.Y.C., O'Brien A., Dillon H., Chalupper J. Hartley L. et al. 2009. Directional effects on infants and young children in real life: Implications for amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 52, 1241-1254.
13. Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Seewald R., Britton L. et al. 2010a. Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S16-S25.
14. Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Seewald R., Britton L. et al. 2010b. Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: paired-comparison judgments and functional performance ratings. Int J Audiol, 49, S35-S48.
15. Cornelisse L.E., Seewald R.C. & Jamieson D.G. 1995. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1854-1864.
16. Dillon H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for nonlinear hearing aids. The Hear J, 52(4), 10-16.
17. 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 Hear, 21, 32-44.
18. 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 Hear, 20, 117-126.
19. Keidser G., Ching T., Dillon H., Agung K., Brew C. et al. 2002. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) CDs of Speech and Noise for Hearing Aid Evaluation: Normative Data and Potential Applications. Aus & NZ J Audiol, 24(1), 16-35; 24(2), 107.
20. Nilsson M., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(2), 1085-1099.
21. Ricketts T.A., Galster J. & Tharpe A.M. 2007. Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments. Am J Audiol, 16, 130-144.
22. 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. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 230-238.
23. Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. (2010a). Speech perception and loudness ratings of children who used hearing aids fitted with the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S26-S34.
24. Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. (2010b). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: preference in real world use. Int J Audiol, 49, S49-S63.
25. Seewald R.C., Cornelisse L.E., Ramji K.V. et al. 1997. DSL v4.1 for Windows: A software implementation of the desired sensation level (DSL[i/o]) method for fitting linear gain and wide-dynamic-range compression hearing instruments. Users' manual. London, ON: Hearing Health Care Research Unit.
26. Seewald R.C., Moodie S.T., Scollie S.D. & Bagatto M. 2005. The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues. Trends Amplification, 9(4), 145-157.
27. Snik A.F., van den Borne S., Brokx J.P. & Hoekstra C. 1995. Hearing-aid fitting in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Scand Audiol, 24, 225-230.
28. Snik A.F.M. & Stollman M.H.P. 1995. Measured and calculated insertion gains in young children. Br J Audiol, 29, 7-11.
29. Stelmachowicz P.G., Dalzell S., Peterson D., Kopun J., Lewis D.L. et al. 1998. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear, 19, 131-138.
30. Studebaker G.A. 1982. Hearing aid selection: An overview. In: G.A. Studebaker & F.H. Bess (eds.) The Vanderbilt Hearing-aid Report: State of the Art Research Needs. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, 147-155.
31. Studebaker G.A., 1985. A 'rationalized' arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455-462
32. Van Buuren R., Festen J. & Plomp R. 1995. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 38(2), 211-221.
33. Vidas S., Hassan R. & Parnes L.S. 1992. Real-life performance considerations of four pediatric multichannel cochlear implant recipients. J Otolaryngol, 21, 387-393.
34. Zakis J.A., McDermott H.J. & Dillon H. 2007. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters. Ear Hear, 28(6), 812-830.