Is there a hearing aid for the thinking person?

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 594-600

  Hafter, Ervin R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive listening devices; Hearing aids; Hearing science; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BINAURAL HEARING; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ENVIRONMENT; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALIZATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; THINKING; VERBAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; THINKING;

EID: 78951472060     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.9.5     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Akeroyd MA. (2008) Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol S53-71.
2. Blauert J. (1983) Spatial Hearing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Boothroyd A. (2009) Adapting to hearing loss: potential benefits of formal speech-perception training. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the NCRAR on Auditory Rehabilitation, Portland, OR.
4. Feuerstein JF. (1992) Monaural versus binaural hearing - ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear 13:80-86.
5. Hafter ER, Schlauch RS. (1991) Cognitive factors and selection of auditory listening bands. In: Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Dancer A. Henderson D. Salvi RJ, Hammernik RP, eds. Philadelphia: B.C. Decker.
6. Hafter ER, Valenzuela MN, Stecker GC, Miele JA, Crum PAC. (2001) Informational dominance in the auditory scene. In: Physiological Bases of Auditory Function. Breebaart D, Houtsma A, Kohlrausch A, Prijs V, Schoonhoven H, eds. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.
7. Kahneman D. (1973) Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Kochkin S. (1996) Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high performance hearing aids. Hear Rev 3:16-26.
9. Levitt H. (2007) A historical perspective on digital hearing aids: how digital technology has changed modern hearing aids. Trends Amplif 11(1):7-24.
10. Moore G. (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38(8).
11. Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M. (1995) How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 97:593-608.
12. Rakerd B, Seitz PF, Whearty M. (1996) Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear 17:97-106.
13. Sarampalis A, Edwards B, Kalluri S, Hafter E. (2009) Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52(5):1230-1240.
14. Seeber B, Fastl J. (2008) Localization cues with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 123(2):1030-1042. (Pubitemid 351222574)
15. Seeber B, Hafter E. (2007) Precedence-effect with cochlear implant simulation. In: Kohlmeir B, Klump G, Hohmann V, eds. Hearing - From Sensory Processing to Perception. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16. Seeber BU, Kerber S, Hafter ER. (2010) A system to simulate and reproduce audio-visual environments for spatial hearing research. Hear Res. 260(1-2):1-10.
17. Sweetow R. (2009) Auditory training and challenges associated with participation and compliance. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the NCRAR on Auditory Rehabilitation, Portland, OR.
18. Wallach H, Newman EB, Rosenzweig MR. (1949) The precedence effect in sound localization. Am J Psychol 62:315-336.
19. Wright BA, Zhang Y. (2009) A review of the generalization of auditory learning. Philos Trans R Soc 364:301-311.