Modern prescription theory and application: Realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing aids

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 143-170

  Johnson, Earl E ^a,b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

efficiency; hearing aids; modern prescription theory; realistic expectations; speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING; HEARING AID; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MODERN PRESCRIPTION THEORY; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRODUCTIVITY; PROSTHESIS; REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EFFICIENCY; HEARING AIDS; MODERN PRESCRIPTION THEORY; REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS; SPEECH RECOGNITION;

ADULT; AGED; AUDIOLOGY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84890446840     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713813506301     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Abrams H. B., Chisolm T. H., McManus M., McArdle R. (2012) Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: Comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 23: 768–778.
2. American National Standards Institute (2007) ANSI S3.5-1997 – Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index, New York, NY: Author.
3. Audioscan. (2012). Verifit®User's Guide (Version 3.10). Retrieved from http://audioscan.com/Docs/vfmanual.pdf.
4. Bentler R., Pavlovic C. V. (1992) Addendum to “Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research.”. Ear and Hearing 1992: 284–286.
5. Bernstein J., Summers V., Grassi E., Grant K. (2013) Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing. Journal of the Academy of Audiology 24: 307–328.
6. Brown, C., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). A clinical and quantitative comparison of generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (i.e., NAL-NL2, CAM2, and DSL 5.0) with individuals having mild-to-moderately-severe high-frequency hearing losses. Joint Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Conference, Nashville, TN.
7. Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K., Cox R., Ludvigsen C. (1994) An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 2108–2120.
8. Carhart R. (1946) Tests for the selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope 56: 780–794.
9. Carhart R. (1951) Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngologica 40: 62–71.
10. Ching T. Y. C., Dillon H., Byrne D. (1998) Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103: 1128–1140.
11. Ching, T. Y. C., Dillon, H., Lockhart, F., van Wanrooy, E., & Flax, M. (2011). Audibility and speech intelligibility revisited: Implications for amplification. In T. Dau, J. C. Dalsgaard, M. L. Jepsen, & Poulsen, T. (Eds.), Speech perception and auditory disorders. 3rd International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research (pp.11–19). Denmark: The Danavox Jubilee Foundation.
12. Ching, T. Y. C., Johnson, E. E., Hou, S., Dillon, H., Zhang, V., Burns, L., … Flynn, C. (in press). A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing aid fitting: Estimates of loudness and speech intelligibility. International Journal of Audiology.
13. Cox R. M., Alexander G. C., Gilmore C. (1987) Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear and Hearing 8: 119s–119s.
14. Cox R. M., Alexander G. C., Taylor I. M., Gray G. A. (1997) The Contour test of loudness perception. Ear and Hearing 18: 388–400.
15. Cox R. M., McDaniel D. M. (1989) Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32: 347–352.
16. Crukley J., Scollie S. (2012) Children's speech recognition and loudness perception with the desired sensation level v5 quiet and noise prescriptions. American Journal of Audiology 21: 149–162.
17. Dillon H. (2006) What's new from NAL in hearing aid prescriptions? Hearing Journal 59: 10–16.
18. Elberling C. (1999) Loudness scaling revisited. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 10: 248–260.
19. Glasberg B. R., Moore B. C. J. (1990) Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hearing Research 47: 103–138.
20. Glasberg, B. R. & Moore, B. C. J. (1996). A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hearing Research, 188, 70–88.
21. Gustafson S. J., Pittman A. L. (2011) Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices. International Journal of Audiology 50: 34–40.
22. Hawkins D. B. (1984) Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49: 409–418.
23. Hogan C. A., Turner C. W. (1998) High frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104: 432–441.
24. Hornsby B. W. Y., Johnson E. E., Picou E. (2011) Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding. Ear and Hearing 32(5): 543–555.
25. Hornsby B. W. Y., Ricketts T. A. (2003) The effects of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to speech understanding. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113: 1706–1717.
26. Humes L. E. (1996) Evolution of prescriptive fitting approaches. The American Journal of Audiology 5: 18–23.
27. Humes L. E. (2002) Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112: 1112–1132.
28. Humes L. E. (2003) Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends in Amplification 7: 41–75.
29. Johnson, E. E. (2012). Same or different: Comparing the latest NAL and DSL prescriptive targets. Retrieved from http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/20q-same-or-different-comparing-769.
30. Johnson E. E., Dillon H. (2011) A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: Impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22(7): 441–459.
31. 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, pp. 133–142.
32. Keidser G., Dillon H., Carter L., O'Brien A. (2012) NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends in Amplification 16: 211–223.
33. Keidser G., Dillon H., Flax M., Ching T., Brewer S. (2011) The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Research 1: 88–90.
34. Killon M. C., Niquette P. A., Gudmundsen G. I., Revitt L. J., Banerjee S. (2004) Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 2395–2405.
35. Kruger B. (1987) An update on the external ear resonance in infants and young children. Ear and Hearing 8: 333–336.
36. Kuk F., Lau C. (1995) The application of binomial probability theory to paired comparison judgments. The American Journal of Audiology 4: 37–42.
37. Kuk F. K. (1994) Paired Comparisons as a fine-tuning tool in hearing aid fittings. In: Valente M. (ed.) Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings, New York, NY: Thieme Medical, pp. 125–148.
38. Light, K., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). The effect of varying amounts of nonlinear frequency compression on amplified sound quality. Joint Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Conference, Nashville, TN.
39. Macrae J. H. (1994) Prediction of asymptotic threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 37: 1450–1458.
40. Macrae J. H. (1995) Temporary and permanent threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38: 949–959.
41. Macrae J. H. (1996) Deterioration of thresholds associated with hearing aid use. Australian Journal of Audiology 18: 73–80.
42. Markowitz H. (1952) Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7: 77–91.
43. McCreery R. W. (2013) Speech intelligibility index: No magic number, but a reasonable solution. Hearing Journal 66: 8–10.
44. McCreery R. W., Stelmachowicz P. G. (2011) Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130: 4070–4081.
45. Moore B. C. J., Füllgrabe C. (2010) Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression. Ear and Hearing 31: 657–666.
46. Moore B. C. J., Glasberg B. R. (1997) A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neuroscience 3: 289–311.
47. Moore B. C. J., Glasberg B. R. (2004) A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hearing Research 188: 70–88.
48. Mueller G., Ricketts T., Bentler R. (2013) Modern hearing aids. Pre-fitting testing and selection considerations, San Diego, CA: Plural.
49. Mueller H. G. (2005) Fitting hearing aids to adults using prescriptive methods: An evidence-based review of effectiveness. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 16: 448–460.
50. Pascoe D. P. (1975) Frequency response of hearing aids and their effects on the speech perception of hearing-impaired subjects. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology 85(Suppl. 23): 1–40.
51. Pascoe D. P. (1988) Clinical measurement of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formulas for hearing aid gain. In: Jensen J. H. (ed.) Hearing aid fitting, Copenhagen, Denmark: Storgaard Jensen, pp. 129–154.
52. Pavlovic C. (1994) Band importance functions for audiological applications. Ear and Hearing 15: 100–104.
53. Pavlovic C. V., Studebaker G. A., Sherbecoe R. L. (1986) An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80: 50–57.
54. Pittman A. L., Lewis D. E., Hoover B. M., Stelmachowicz P. G. (1999) Recognition performance for four combinations of FM system and hearing aid microphone signals in adverse listening conditions. Ear and Hearing 20: 270–289.
55. Punch J. L., Parker C. A. (1981) Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24: 366–374.
56. Rankovic C. (1991) An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34: 391–402.
57. Ricketts T. A. (2000) Directivity quantification in hearing aids: Fitting and measurement effects. Ear and Hearing 21: 45–58.
58. Sammeth C., Levitt H. (2000) Hearing aid selection and fitting in adults: History and evolution. In: Valente M., Hosford-Dunn H., Roeser R. J. (eds) Audiology: Treatment, New York, NY: Theime, pp. 213–253.
59. Scollie S. (2008) Children's speech recognition scores: The speech intelligibility index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Trends in Amplification 29: 543–556.
60. Scollie S., Ching T. Y. C., Seewald R., Dillion H., Britton L., Steinberg J., Corcoran J. (2010) Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. International Journal of Audiology 49: 49–63.
61. Scollie S., Seewald R., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M., Laurnagaray D., Pumford J. (2005) The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amplification 9: 159–197.
62. 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. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 11: 230–238.
63. Seewald R. C., Moodie K. S., Scollie S., Bagatto M. (2005) The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues. Trends in Amplification 9: 145–157.
64. Serpanos Y. C., Gravel J. S. (2004) Revisiting loudness measures in children using a computer method of cross-modality matching (CMM). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 7: 486–497.
65. Sherbecoe R. L., Studebaker G. A. (2002) Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test. Ear and Hearing 23: 385–398.
66. Sherbecoe R. L., Studebaker G. A. (2003) Audibility-index functions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners’ performance on the connected speech test. Ear and Hearing 24: 71–88.
67. Skinner M. W. (1980) Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effect of high frequency compensation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67: 306–317.
68. Skinner M. W., Karstaedt M. M., Miller J. D. (1982) Amplification bandwidth and speech intelligibility for two listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 21: 251–268.
69. Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A., Grant F., Brew C. (2006a) Preferred overall loudness. I. Sound field presentation in the laboratory. International Journal of Audiology 45: 2–11.
70. Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A. &, Grant F. (2006b) Preferred overall loudness. II. Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. International Journal of Audiology 45: 12–25.
71. Stelmachowicz P., Lewis D., Kalberer A., Creutz T. (1994) Situational hearing aid response profile (SHARP, Version 2.0). User's manual, Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
72. Stelmachowicz P. G., Pittman A. L., Hoover B. M., Lewis D. E. (2001) Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110: 2183–2190.
73. Stiles D. J., Bentler R. A., McGregor K. K. (2012) The speech intelligibility index and the pure-tone average as predictors of lexical ability in children fit with hearing aids. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55: 764–778.
74. Studebaker G. A., Sherbecoe R. L., Gilmore C. (1993) Frequency-importance and transfer functions for the Auditec of St. Louis recordings of the NU-6 word test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 36: 799–807.
75. Studebaker G. A., Sherbecoe R. L., McDaniel D. M., Gray G. A. (1997) Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 8: 150–162.
76. Thorton A. R., Raffin J. M. (1978) Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 21: 507–518.
77. Thurstone L. L. (1927a) A law of comparative judgment. Psychology Review 34: 273–286.
78. Thurstone L. L. (1927b) Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology 38: 369–389.
79. Trammell, J., & Johnson, E. E. (2013). Cutoff frequencies of audibility for NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions. Joint Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Conference, Nashville, TN.
80. Wilson R. H. (2011) The effects of pure-tone hearing loss and aging on word-recognition performance in quiet and in multitalker babble: Clinic data from 3430 veterans. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 22: 405–423.
81. Wilson R. H., Noe C. M., Cruickshanks K. J., Wiley T. L., Nondahl D. M. (2010) Prevalence and degree of hearing loss among males in the Beaver Dam Cohort: A comparison of veterans and non-veterans. Journal of Rehabilitative Research and Development 47: 505–520.
82. Valente M., Abrams H., Benson D., Chisolm T., Citron D., Hampton D., Sweetow R. (2006) Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiology Today 18(5): 32–37.
83. Zerlin S. (1962) A new approach to hearing-aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5: 370–376.