Children's speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages S26-s34

  Scollie, Susan D ^a   Ching, Teresa Y C ^b,c   Seewald, Richard C ^a   Dillon, Harvey ^b,c   Britton, Louise ^d   Steinberg, Jane ^e   King, Katrina ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b National Acoustics Laboratories   (Australia)

^c HEARing CRC   (Australia)

^d Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children   (Australia)

^e Dynamic Hearing Inc   (Australia)

^f Audio Clinic   (Australia)

Author keywords

Children; Cross over studies; Double blind methods; DSL; Hearing aids; Hearing loss; Loudness perception; NAL; Noise; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 76449092094     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992020903121159     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bench, R.J. & Doyle, J. 1979. The Bamford-Kowal-Bench/Australian version (BKB/A) Standard Sentence Lists. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Lincoln Institute.
2. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. 2000. On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. J Ed and Behav Stat, 25, 60-83.
3. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R. & Keidser, G. 2001. NALNL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37-51.
4. Byrne, D. & Dirks, D. 1996. Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on non-speech auditory abilities. Ear Hear 17(3 Suppl), 29S-37S. (Pubitemid 26226787)
5. 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.
6. 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(4), 219-222.
7. Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Britton, L., Steinberg, M.J. et al (2010b). 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.
8. Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H. & Seewald, R.C. (2010a). A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL 4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 49, S4-S15.
9. Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Seewald, R.C., Britton, L., Steinberg, J., Gilliver, M. & Agung King, K. (2010c). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance rating. Int J Audiol, 49, S35-S48.
10. Ching, T.YC., Hill, M., van Wanrooy, E. & Agung, K. 2004. The advantages of wide-dynamic-range compression over linear amplification for children. NAL Annual Report 2003-2004. Chatswood, Australia: National Acoustics Laboratories.
11. Convery, E., Keidser, G. & Dillon, H. 2005. A review: Does amplification experience have an effect on preferred gain over time? Aus New Zealand J Audiol, 27(1), 18-32.
12. 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(3), 1854-1864.
13. Cox, R.M. & Gray, GA. 2001. Verifying loudness perception after hearing aid fitting. A J Audiol, 10, 91-98.
14. Dillon, H., Byrne, D., Brewer, S., Katsch, R., Ching, T. et al. 1999. NAL Nonlinear Version 1.39 User's Manual. Chatswood, Australia: National Acoustics Laboratories.
15. Humes, L.E. 2003. Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends Amplif, 7(2), 41-75.
16. 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.
17. Jenstad, L.M., Pumford, J., Seewald, R.C. & Cornelisse, L.E. 2000. Comparison of linear gain and WDRC hearing aid circuits II: Aided loudness measures. Ear Hear, 21(1), 32-44.
18. Killion, M. & Fikret-Pasa, S. 1993. The three types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility consideration. Hearing J, 46, 31-36.
19. Kirk, R.E. 1995. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. (3rd ed.). Pacifi c Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
20. Matsunaga, M. 2007. Familywise error in multiple comparisons: Disentangling a knot through a critique of O'Keefe's arguments against alpha adjustment. Comm Methods and Measures, 1(4), 243-265.
21. Moore, B.C.J. & Glasberg, B.R. 2004. A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res, 188, 70-88.
22. Mueller, H.G., Weber, J. & Hornsby, B.W.Y. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 83-94.
23. Munro, K.J. & Lutman, M. 2003. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 114(1), 484-495.
24. 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.
25. Philibert, B., Collet, L., Vesson, J.-F. & Veuillet, E. 2002. Intensity-related performances are modified by long-term hearing aid use: A functional plasticity? Hear Res, 165(1-2), 142-151.
26. Philibert, B., Collet, L., Vesson, J.-F. & Veuillet, E. 2005. The auditory acclimatization effect in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners: Evidence for functional plasticity. Hear Res, 205(1-2), 131-142.
27. Scollie, S.D., Ching, T.Y.C., Seewald, R.C., Dillon, H., Britton, L. & Steinberg, M.J. (2010). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. Int J Audiol, 49, S49-S63.
28. 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(4), 230-238.
29. Seewald, R.C, Cornelisse, L.E., Ramji, K.V, Sinclair, S.T., Moodie, K.S. et al. 1997. A software implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL[i/o]) Method for fitting linear gain and wide-dynamicrange compression hearing instruments, Version 4.1. Hearing Health Care Research Unit, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
30. Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455-462.