Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 37-47

  Ellis, Rachel J ^a,b   Munro, Kevin J ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Auditory acclimatization; Cognition; Frequency compression; Sensorineural hearing loss; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS, HIGH-FREQUENCY; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PROCEDURES; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERY ELDERLY;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, HIGH-FREQUENCY; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84918767648     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2014.948217     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Arlinger S., Gatehouse S., Bentler R.A., Byrne D., Cox R.M. et al. 1996. Report of the Eriksholm workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatization. Ear Hear, 17, S87-S98.
2. Ellis R.J. & Munro K.J. (under review) Predictors of outcome from frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users.
3. Gatehouse S. 1992. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1258-1268.
4. Gatehouse S. 1999. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 80-103.
5. Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99.
6. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006a. Linear and nonlinear hearing-aid fittings: 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130-152.
7. Glista D., Scollie S., Bagatto M., Seewald R., Parsa V. et al. 2009. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: Clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 48, 632-644.
8. Glista D., Scollie S. & Sulkers J. 2012. Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing-aid fitting in older children. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55, 1765-1787.
9. Hamilton A., Siciliano C. & Munro K.J. 2011, September. Non-linear frequency compression: An analysis of errors and a comparison of auditory training methods with normal hearing adults. Poster presented at the BSA Annual Conference, Nottingham. UK.
10. Keidser G., Dillon H.R., Flax M., Ching T. & Brewer S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res doi:10.4081/audiores.2011.e24.
11. Kemker B.E. & Holmes A.E. 2004. Analysis of prefitting versus postfitting hearing aid orientation using the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP). J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 311-323.
12. Mahon M. & Crutchley A. 2006. Performance of typically-developing school-age children with English as an additional language on the British PictureVocabulary Scales II. Child Lang Teach Ther, 22, 333-351.
13. McDermott H.J. 2011. A technical comparison of digital frequency-lowering algorithms available in two current hearing aids. PLoS ONE 6(7), e22358. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022358
14. Moore B.C.J., Huss M., Vickers D.A., Glasberg B.R. & Alcántara J.I. 2000. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol, 34, 205-224.
15. Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. & Stone M.A. 2004. New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL. Ear Hear, 25, 478-487.
16. Munro K.J. & Lutman M.E. 2003. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 484-495.
17. Munro K.J. & Lutman M.E. 2004. Self-reported outcome in new hearing-aid users over a 24-week post-fitting period. Int J Audiol, 43, 555-562.
18. Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2006. Effect of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fittings on abilities measured by the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 45, 172-181.
19. Rothauser E.H., Chapman, W.D., Guttman N., Nordby K.S., Silbiger H. et al. 1969. IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Acoust, 17, 227-246.
20. SimpsonA., Hersbach A.A. & McDermott H.J. 2005. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol, 44, 281-292.
21. Simpson A., Hersbach A.A. & McDermott H.J. 2006 Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol, 45, 619-629.
22. Wilson R.H., McArdle R.A. & Smith S.L. 2007. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 844-856.
23. Wolfe J., John A., Schafer E., Nyffeler M., Boretzki M. et al. 2010. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 618-628.
24. Wolfe J., John A., Schafer E., Nyffeler M., Boretzki M. et al. 2011. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 50, 396-404.