Erratum: Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss (Gerontology (2014) 60 (557-568) DOI: 10.1159/000362547);Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing Loss

Gerontology

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 557-568

  Cox, Robyn M ^a   Johnson, Jani A ^a   Xu, Jingjing ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Adult onset sensorineural hearing loss; Advanced hearing aid technology; Hearing aids; Laboratory speech understanding; Older listeners; Standardized questionnaires

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH; AGE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; MIDDLE AGED; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84908658821     PISSN: 0304324X     EISSN: 14230003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000438711     Document Type: Erratum

References (38)

1. Summer L, O'Neill G, Shirey L: Chronic Conditions: A Challenge for the 21st Century. Washington, National Academy on an Aging Society, 1999, No 1.
2. Lin F, Niparko J, Ferrucci L: Hearing loss prevalence in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:1851-1852.
3. Roth T, Hanebuth D, Probst R: Prevalence of age-related hearing loss in Europe: a review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 268:1101-1107.
4. Ciorba A, Bianchini C, Pelucchi S, Pastore A: The impact of hearing loss on the quality of life of elderly adults. Clin Interv Aging 2012; 7:159-163.
5. Swan IRC, Guy FH, Akeroyd MA: Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: a prospective national study. Clin Otolaryngol 2012; 37:35-43.
6. Chien W, Lin F: Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:292-293.
7. Hougaard S, Ruf S, Egger C: Eurotrak + Japantrak 2012: societal and personal benefits of rehabilitation with hearing aids. Hear Rev 2013;20: 16-26.
8. Kochkin S, Marketrak VI: On the issue of value: hearing aid benefit, price, satisfaction, and repurchase rates. Hear Rev 2003; 10:12-26.
9. Newman CW, Sandridge SA: Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. Am J Audiol 1998; 7:115-128.
10. Meyer C, Hickson L: What factors influence help-seeking for hearing impairment and hearing aid adoption in older adults? Int J Audiol 2012; 51:66-74.
11. Dillon H: What's new from NAL in hearing aid prescriptions? Hear J 2006; 59:10-16.
12. Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, ed 2. Hillsdale/NJ, Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
13. Grissom RJ: Probability of the superior outcome of one treatment over another. J Appl Psychol 1994; 79:314-316.
14. ∗ Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39:175-191.
15. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, Biomechanics: Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83:859-895.
16. Kochkin S: Consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. Hear Rev 2002; 9:18-22.
17. Bridges JFP, Lataille AT, Buttorff C, White S, Niparko JK: Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods. Trends Amplif 2012; 16:40-48.
18. Foster JR, Haggard MP: The four alternative auditory feature test (FAAF) - linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol 1987; 21: 165-174.
19. Xu J, Cox RM: Recording and evaluation of an American dialect version of the four alternative auditory feature test. J Am Acad Audiol, in press.
20. Cox RM, Alexander GC: The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16:176-186.
21. Gatehouse S, Noble W: The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43:85-99.
22. Jensen NS, Akeroyd MA, Noble W, Naylor G: The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) as a benefit measure: Fourth NCRAR International Conference, Portland/OR, 2009.
23. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Xu J: Development of the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) Scale. J Am Acad Audiol, in press.
24. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE: Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87.
25. Knudsen LV, Laplante-Levesque A, Jones L, Preminger JE, Nielsen C, Lunner T, Hickson L, Naylor G, Kramer SE: Conducting qualitative research in audiology: a tutorial. Int J Audiol 2012; 51:83-92.
26. Rosenthal R, Rosnow R: Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
27. Buckless FA, Ravenscroft SP: Contrast coding: a refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. Account Rev 1990; 65:933-945.
28. Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Dobie RA, Haskell GB, Bratt GW, Shanks JE, Stelmachowicz P, Studebaker GA, Boysen AE, Donahue A, Canalis R, Fausti SA, Rappaport BZ: Efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 2000; 284:1806-1813.
29. Kochkin S: Marketrak VIII: patients report improved quality of life with hearing aid usage. Hear J 2011; 64:25-32.
30. Woods WS, Van Tasell DJ, Rickert ME, Trine TD: SII and fit-to-target analysis of compression system performance as a function of number of compression channels. Int J Audiol 2006; 45:630-644.
31. Yund EW, Buckles KM: Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97:1206-1223.
32. Bor S, Souza P, Wright R: Multichannel compression: effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51:1315-1327.
33. Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Dyrlund O: Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15:353-364.
34. Gnewikow D, Ricketts T, Bratt GW, Mutchler LC: Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009; 46:603-618.
35. Buchler M, Allegro S, Launer S, Dillier N: Sound classification in hearing aids inspired by auditory scene analysis. EURASIP J Appl Signal Process 2005; 18:2991-3002.
36. Keidser G: Many factors are involved in optimizing environmentally adaptive hearing aids. Hear J 2009; 62:26-31.
37. Wu YH, Stangl E, Bentler RA, Stanziola RW: The effect of hearing aid technologies on listening in an automobile. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24:474-485.
38. Kirkwood DH: Research firm analyzes market share, retail activity, and prospects of major hearing aid manufacturers. Accessed July 10, 2013. http://hearinghealthmattersorg/hearingnewswatch/2013/research-firm-analyzes-market-share-retail-stores-prospects-of-major-hearing-aid-makers/.