A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: Impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 441-459

  Johnson, Earl E ^a,b   Dillon, Harvey ^c  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bandwidth; CAMEQ2 HF; Compression; DSL m i o ; Hearing aid; Loudness; NAL NL2; Prescription; Speech intelligibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CAMBRIDGE METHOD FOR LOUDNESS EQUALIZATION 2 HIGH FREQUENCY PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DESIRED SENSATION LEVEL MULTISTAGE INPUT OUTPUT PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD; EARDRUM; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MALE; MIXED HEARING LOSS; NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORY NON LINEAR 1 PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD; NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORY NON LINEAR 2 PRESCRIPTIVE METHOD; NOISE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

ADULT; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PITCH PERCEPTION; PRESCRIPTIONS; SOFTWARE; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 80054710800     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.22.7.5     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Akeroyd MA. (2010) The effect of hearing-aid compression on judgments of relative distance. J Acoust Soc Am 127:9-12.
2. American National Standards Institute. (2007) Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Arlinger S, Billermark E, Oberg M, Lunner T, Hellgren J. (1998) Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol 27:51-61. (Pubitemid 28064111)
4. Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S, et al. (2005) Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends Amplif 9:199-226. (Pubitemid 43130930)
5. Boike KT, Souza PE. (2000) Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43:456-468.
6. Byrne D. (1986a) Effects of bandwidth and stimulus type on most comfortable loudness levels of hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:484-493.
7. Byrne D. (1986b) Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:494-504.
8. 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. (Pubitemid 16041360)
9. 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. (Pubitemid 33040892)
10. Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, et al. (1994) An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2108-2120. (Pubitemid 24311638)
11. Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. (1991) Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. In: Studebaker G, Bess F, Beck L, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 195-199.
12. Byrne D, Tonisson W. (1976) Selecting the gain of hearing aids for persons with sensorineural hearing losses. Scand Audiol 5:51-59.
13. Ching T, Dillon H, Byrne D. (1998) Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1128-1140. (Pubitemid 28087582)
14. Cornelisse L, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1995) The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854-1864.
15. Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C. (1987) Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 8:119S-126S.
16. Dillon H. (1999) NAL-NL1: a new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 52:10-16.
17. Dillon H. (2001) Hearing Aids. New York: Theime.
18. Dillon H. (2006) What's new from NAL in hearing aid prescriptions? Hear J 59:10-16.
19. Dreschler W, Keidser G, Convery E, Dillon H. (2008) Client-based adjustments of hearing aid gain: the effect of different control configurations. Ear Hear 29:214-227. (Pubitemid 351640528)
20. Füllgrabe C, Baer T, Stone MA, Moore BCJ. (2010) Preliminary evaluation of a method for fitting hearing aids with extended bandwidth. Int J Audiol 49(10):741-753.
21. Hogan CA, Turner CW. (1998) High frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432-441. (Pubitemid 28321731)
22. Hornsby BWY, Ricketts TA. (2003) The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am 113:1706-1717. (Pubitemid 36297971)
23. Humes L. (2002) Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am 112:1112-1132.
24. Humes LE. (2003) Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends Amplif 7(2):41-75.
25. Jenstad LM, Bagatto MP, Seewald RC, Scollie SD, Cornelisse LE, Scicluna R. (2007) Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithmfor adults with hearing loss: the acceptable range for amplified conversational speech. Ear Hear 28:793-811. (Pubitemid 350059321)
26. Keidser G, Ching T, Dillon H, et al. (2002) The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) CDs of speech and noise for hearing aid evaluation: normative data and potential applications. Aust N Z J Audiol 24:16-35. (Pubitemid 36070173)
27. Keidser G, Dillon H. (2006) What's new in prescriptive fittings Down Under. In: Palmer C, Seewald R, eds. Hearing Care for Adults. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG, 133-142.
28. Keidser G, Dillon H, Convery E. (2008) The effect of the base line response on self-adjustments of hearing aid gain. J Acoust Soc Am 124:1668-1681.
29. Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. (2011) The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res 1:88-90.
30. Launer S, Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. (1997) Modeling loudness growth and loudness summation in hearing-impaired listeners. In: Jesteadt W, ed. Modeling Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 175-185.
31. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. (1997a) A digital filterbank hearing aid: improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective judgments. Scand Audiol 26:169-176. (Pubitemid 27395375)
32. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. (1997b) A digital filterbank hearing aid: predicting user preference and performance. Ear Hear 18:12-25. (Pubitemid 27100541)
33. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. (1997c) A digital filterbank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms - user preference and performance. Ear Hear 18:373-387. (Pubitemid 27467600)
34. Lybarger SF. (1963) Simplified Fitting System for Hearing Aids. Cantonsburg, PA: Radioear Co.
35. McCandless GA, Lyregaard PE. (1983) Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 34:1-17, 19-21.
36. Moore BCJ. (1995) Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. London: Oxford University Press.
37. Moore BCJ. (2005) The use of a loudness model to derive initial fittings for hearing aids: validation studies. In: Anderson T, Larsen CB, Poulsen T, Rasmussen AN, Simonsen JB, eds. Hearing Aid Fitting. Copenhagen, Denmark: Holmens Trykkeri, 11-33.
38. Moore BCJ, Füllgrabe C. (2010) Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression. Ear Hear 31:657-666.
39. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1996) A revision of Zwicker's loudness model. Acta Acustica 82:335-345. (Pubitemid 126513309)
40. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1997) A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud Neurosci 3:289-311. (Pubitemid 27165786)
41. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (2004) A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res 188:70-88. (Pubitemid 38169242)
42. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. (1999) Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol 33:241-258. (Pubitemid 29438483)
43. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. (2010) Development of a new method for deriving initial fitting for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol 49:216-227.
44. Moore BCJ, Stone MA, Füllgrabe C, Glasberg BR, Puria S. (2008) Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-tomoderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 29:907-922.
45. Moore BCJ, Tan CT. (2003) Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am 114:408-419. (Pubitemid 36835511)
46. Mueller HG, Hornsby BWY, Weber JE. (2008) Using trainable hearing aids to examine real-world preferred gain. J Am Acad Audiol 19:758-773.
47. Mueller HG, Picou EM. (2010) Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63(5):27-28 30, 32.
48. Pavlovic C. (1994) Band importance functions for audiological applications. Ear Hear 15:100-104.
49. Polonenko MJ, Scollie S, Moodie S, et al. (2010) Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol 49:550-560.
50. Rankovic C. (1991) An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res 34:391-402.
51. Ricketts TA, Dittberner BA, Johnson EE. (2008) High frequency bandwidth and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51:160-172. (Pubitemid 351206582)
52. Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, et al. (2005) The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9:159-197. (Pubitemid 43130929)
53. Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Ramji KV, Sincliar ST, Moodie KS, Jamieson DG. (1996) DSL v4.0 for Windows Manual. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
54. Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, et al. (2006a) Preferred overall loudness. I. Sound field presentation in the laboratory. Int J Audiol 45:2-11. (Pubitemid 41780308)
55. Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, et al. (2006b) Preferred overall loudness. II. Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol 45:12-25. (Pubitemid 41780309)
56. Stelmachowicz PG. (2001) Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2183-2190.
57. Studebaker G, Gray G, Branch W. (1999) Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. J Am Acad Audiol 10:355-370.
58. Turner CW, Henry BA. (2002) Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 112:1675-1680.
59. Walker G. (1997) Conductive hearing impairment and preferred hearing aid gain. Aust J Audiol 19:81-89.
60. Walker G. (1999) The required frequency responses of hearing aids for people with conductive hearing losses. Aust J Audiol 21:39-43.