Preferred signal path delay and high-pass cut-off in open fittings

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 634-644

  Bramsløw, Lars ^a  

^a OTICON A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Hearing aids; Open fittings; Processing delay; Sound quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CASE CONTROL STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; PATIENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77955636429     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992021003753482     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Agnew J. & Thornton J.M. 2000. Just noticeable and objectionable group delays in digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 330-336. ANSI 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index ANSI S3.5-1997
2. Bech S. & Zacharov N. 2006. Perceptual Audio Evaluation: Theory, Method and Application, Wiley.
3. Bradley R.A. 1984. Paired comparisons: Some basic procedures and examples. In: P.R. Krishnaiah & P.K. Sen (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, Volume 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 299-326.
4. Choisel & Wickelmaier. 2007. Evaluation of multichannel reproduced sound: Scaling auditory attributes underlying listener preference J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 388-400.
5. Egner T.1953. Klatremus og de andre dyr i Hakkebakkeskoven (In Danish)
6. Gyldendal. Ellermeier W., Made M. & Danie P. 2004. Scaling the unpleasantness of sounds according to the BTL model: Ratio-scale representation and psychoacoustical analysis. Acustica, 90, 101-107
7. Groth J. & S ø ndergaard M.B. 2003. Disturbance caused by varying pro pagation delay in non-occluding hearing aid fi ttings. Int J Audiol, 43, 594-599
8. Hinkelmann K. & Kempthorne O. 2008. Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume 1, Introduction to Experimental Design. Wiley.
9. Keidser G., Carter L., Chalupper J. & Dillon H. 2007. Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefi t derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 46, 554-568
10. M ü sch H., Nooraei N., Edwards B. & Pavlovic C. 2004. Permissible delay in a partially occluding monaurally fi t hearing aid. Poster presented at IHCON 2004, LakeTahoe, USA
11. Pavlovic C.,Hou J,Müsch H., 2009, SII: Speech Intelligibility Index, http://www.sii.to
12. Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 1999. Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses. Ear Hear, 20, 182-192
13. Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2002. Tolerable hearing aid delays. II. Estimation of limits imposed during speech production. Ear Hear, 23, 325-338
14. Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2003. Tolerable hearing aid delays. III. Effects on speech production and perception of across-frequency variation in delay. Ear Hear, 24, 175-183
15. Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2005. Tolerable hearing-aid delays IV. Effects on subjective disturbance during speech production by hearing-impaired subjects. Ear Hear, 26, 225-235
16. Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Meisenbacher K. & Derleth R.P. 2008. Tolerable hearing aid delays. V. Estimation of limits for open canal fi ttings. Ear Hear, 29, 601-617
17. Tversky A. & Sattah S. 1979. Preference trees. Psychological Review, 86, 542-573
18. Wickelmaier F. & Schmid C. 2004. A Matlab function to estimate choice model parameters from ired-comparison data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 29-40
19. Zimmer K., Ellermeier W. & Schmid C. 2004. Using probabilistic choice models to investigate auditory unpleasantness. Acustica, 90,1019-1028.