Comparison of the electroacoustic characteristics of five hearing aids

References

• ANSI. ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility articulation index. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler RA, Pavlovic CV. Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear 1989; 10:58-63.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein SP, Randolph KJ. Research on smooth, wideband frequency responses: current status and unresolved issues. Hear Inst 1983; 34:12-16.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83:1508-16.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 86:1374-83.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhard MD, Sachs RM. Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. J Acoust Soc Am 1975; 58:214-22.
   Google Scholar
• Cox RM, Gilmore C. Damping and the hearing aid frequency response: effects on speech clarity and preferred listening level. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29:357-65.
   Google Scholar
• Crain TR, van Tasell DJ. Effect of peak clipping on speech recognition threshold. Ear Hear 1994; 15:443-53.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H. Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear 1996; 17: 287-307.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H, Macrae J. Derivation of Design Specifications for Hearing Aids (NAL report number 102). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Gabrielsson A, Nyberg PO, Sjögren H, Svensson L. Detection of amplitude distortion by normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects. Karolinska Institute, Technical Audiology 1976; Report TA 83:1-20.
   Google Scholar
• Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear Res 1990; 47:103-38.
   Google Scholar
• Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97:1191-5.
   Google Scholar
• IEC118. Hearing Aids. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs JE, Wittman P. Psychoacoustics, the determining factor in stereo disc distortion. J Audio Eng Soc 1964; 12:115-23.
   Google Scholar
• Killion MC. Revised estimate of minimal audible pressure: Where is the ‘missing 6 dB’? J Acoust Soc Am 1978;63:1501-10.
   Google Scholar
• Killion MC. Transducers, earmolds and sound quality considerations. In: GA Studebaker, FH Bess (eds). The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report, Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, 1982; 104-11.
   Google Scholar
• Killion MC, Monser EL. CORFIG: Coupler response for flat insertion gain. In: G Studebaker, I Hochberg (eds). Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980; 149-69.
   Google Scholar
• Letowski T. Difference limen for nonlinear distortion in sine signals and musical sounds. Acustica 1975; 34:106-10.
   Google Scholar
• Libby ER. Achieving a transparent, smooth, wideband hearing aid response. Hear Inst. 1981; 32:9-12.
   Google Scholar
• Mertz P. Clinical applications of innovative earmold coupling systems. Audecibel 1982; 31: 24-6.
   Google Scholar
• Moodie KS, Seewald RC, Sinclair ST. Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing aid performance in young children. Am J Audiol 1994; 3: 23-31.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. Cochlear Hearing Loss. London: Whurr, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. How much do we gain by gain control in hearing aids? Acta Otolaryngol 1990; 469 (Suppl.): 250-6.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multichannel compression so as to restore ‘normal’ loudness for speech at different levels. Br J Audiol 2000; 34:165-77.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. 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 1999; 33:241-58.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Wojtczak M, Vickers DA. Effect of loudness recruitment on the perception of amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100:481-9.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. The role of modulation in hearing. In: R Klinke, R Hartmann (eds). Hearing - Physiological Bases and Psychophysics. Berlin: Springer, 1983; 270-6.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83:2322-7.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 1994; 15:2-12.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz M. Information Transmission, Modulation, and Noise. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw EAG. Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 1848-61.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner MW, Miller JD. Amplification bandwidth and intelligibility of speech in quiet and noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 1983; 22:253-79.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg JC, Gardner MB. The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 1937; 9:11-23.
   Google Scholar
• Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Syllabic compression: effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol 1992; 26: 351-61.
   Google Scholar
• Stone MA, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106:3603-19.
   Google Scholar
• Swan IR, Gatehouse S. The value of routine in-the-ear measurement of hearing aid gain. Br J Audiol 1995; 29:271-7.
   Google Scholar
• van Buuren RA, Festen J, Houtgast T. Peaks in the frequency response of hearing aids: evaluation of the effects on speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 239-50.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijkhuizen JN, Festen JM, Plomp R. The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:885-94.
   Google Scholar
• Vickers DA, Moore BCJ, Baer T. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 1164-75.
   Google Scholar