Non-Linear Signal Processing in Digital Hearing Aids

References

• Barfod J. Multichannel compression hearing aids: experiments and considerations on clinical applicability. Scand Audiol 1978; (Suppl. 6): 315–40.
   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 Hearing 1986; 7: 257–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson D, Clark TM, Johnson JS. Patient experiences with multiband full dynamic range compression. Ear Hearing 1992; 13: 320–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bonding P, Elberling C. Loudness summation across frequency under masking and in sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 1980; 19: 57–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Danaher EM, Osberger MJ, Pickett JM. Discrimination of formant frequency transitions in synthetic vowels. J Speech Hear Res 1973; 16: 439–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon H. Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hearing 1996; 17: 287–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagne JP. Excess masking among listeners with a sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 2311–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13: 57–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B, Kinnefors C. Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol 1995; 24: 71–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins DB, Naidoo SV. Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 221–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hawkins DB, Walden BE, Montgomery AA, Prosek RA. Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hearing 1987; 8: 162–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Hellgren J. A digital filterbank hearing aid: design, implementation and evaluation. Proceedings of the Interna-tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Proces-sing (ICASSP 91), Toronto, Canada 1991; 5: 3661–4.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. A digital filterbank hearing aid: predicting user preference and performance for two signal processing algorithms. Ear Hear 1997a; 18: 12–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. A digital filterbank hearing aid: three Digital Signal Processing algorithms—user preference and performance. Ear Hear 1997b; 18: 373–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangold S, Leijon A. Programmable hearing aid with multi-channel compression. Scand Audiol 1979; 8: 121–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manly BFJ. Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• McCandless GA, Lyregaard PE. Prescription of gain and output (POGO) in hearing aids. Hear Instr 1983; 34: 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 133–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Johnson JS, Clark TM, Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 349–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen J. From acoustic amplification to hearing loss compensa-tion. Hear Instr 1992; 43: 12–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ono H, Kanzaki J, Mizoi K. Clinical results of hearing aid with noise-level-controlled selective amplification. Audiology 1983; 22: 494–515.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multi-channel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 2322–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 2–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz DM, Lyregaard PE, Lundh P. Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss (POGO II). Hear J 1988; 41: 13–7.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg, JC, Gardner, MB. The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 1937; 9: 11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Summers V, Leek MR. Intraspeech spread of masking in normal-hearing and hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101: 2866–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trees DE, Turner CW. Spread of masking in normal subjects and in subjects with high frequency hearing loss. Audiology 1986; 25: 70–83.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Villchur E. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 1973; 53: 1646–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar