Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally

References

• Allen JB, Jeng PS. Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB); a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88:745-53.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI. ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Dillon H. ‘The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7:257-65.
   Google Scholar
• Carhart RC, Tillman TW. Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing losses. Arch Otolaryngol 1970;91:273-9.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 1854-64.
   Google Scholar
• Cox RM. Using loudness data for hearing aid selection. The IHAFF approach. Hear J 1995; 48:10,39-44.
   Google Scholar
• Cox RM. Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176-86.
   Google Scholar
• Davis A. Hearing in Adults. London: Whurr Publishers, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H. NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 1999;52:10-16.
   Google Scholar
• Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source on the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74:739-43.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Bell TS. Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38: 222-33.
   Google Scholar
• Elberling C. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10:248-60.
   Google Scholar
• Finney DJ. Probit Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Hohmann V, Kollneier B. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 1191-5.
   Google Scholar
• Hygge S, Rönnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects’ ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:208-15.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling J. Scaling methods for the selection, fitting and evaluation of hearing aids. In: Kollmeier B, ed. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, Singapore: World Scientific, 1997; 297-306.
   Google Scholar
• Killion MC. Hearing aids: past, present and future: moving toward normal conversations in noise, Br J Audiol 1997;31:141-8.
   Google Scholar
• Killion MC, Fikret-Pasa S. Three types of sensorineural hearing loss: loudness and intelligibility considerations. Hear J 1993; 46: 31-6.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B, Hohmann V. Loudness estimation and compensation employing a categorical scale. In: Manley GA, Klump GM, Köppl C, Fastl H, Oeckinghaus H, eds. Advances in Hearing Research, Singapore: World Scientific, 1995; 441-51.
   Google Scholar
• Libby ER. Achieving a transparent, smooth, wideband hearing aid response. Hear Inst 1981;32:9-12.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod A, Summerlield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 29-43.
   Google Scholar
• McCandless GA, Lyregard PE. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Inst 1983;34:16-21.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing (fourth edition). San Diego, CA: Academic, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. Cochlear Hearing Loss. London: Whurr Publishers, 1998.
   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. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neurosci 1997;3:289-311.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1998; 32:317-35.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Vickers DA. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Br J Audiol 1995;29:131-43.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Stone MA, Glasberg BR. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol 1999a; 33:157-70.
   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 1999b; 33:241-58.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Vickers DA. Further evaluation of a model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1999c; 106:898-907. *
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Stone MA. Benefits of linear amplification and multi-channel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999d; 105:400-11.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcántara JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 2000; 34: 205-24.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Stone MA, Alcántara JI. Comparison of the electroacoustic characteristics of five hearing aids. BrJ Audiol 2001;35:307-325.
   Google Scholar
• Pearsons KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Peters RW, Moore BCJ, Baer T. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103:577-87.
   Google Scholar
• Pluvinage V. Clinical measurement of loudness growth. Hear Inst 1989; 39:28-9,32.
   Google Scholar
• Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Dekok K. Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: comparison to prescriptive targets. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11:230-8.
   Google Scholar
• Seewald RC. The desired sensation level method for fitting children: Version 3.0. The Hearing Journal 1992;45:36-41.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg JC, Gardner MB. The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 1937; 9:11-23.
   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
• Takahashi G A, Bacon SP. Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:1410-21.
   Google Scholar
• van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Plomp R. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:211-21.
   Google Scholar
• van Buuren RA, Festen J, Houtgast T. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105:2903-13.
   Google Scholar
• Villchur E. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 1973; 53:1646-57.
   Google Scholar