Functionality of hearing aids: state-of-the-art and future model-based solutions

References

• Abrams, H.B., Chisolm, T.H., McManus, M. & McArdle R. 2012. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: Comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 768–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams, H.B. & Kihm, J. 2015. An introduction to MarkeTrak IX: A new baseline for the hearing aid market. Hear Rev, 22, 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Agnew, J. & Thornton, J.M. 2000. Just noticeable and objectionable group delays in digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 330–336.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Akeroyd, M.A. 2006. The psychoacoustics of binaural hearing: La psicoacústica de la audición binaural. Int J Audiol, 45, 25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, J.M., Kopun, J.G. & Stelmachowicz, P.G. 2014. Effects of frequency compression and frequency transposition on fricative and affricate perception in listeners with normal hearing and mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear, 35, 519–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, J.B., Hall, J.L. & Jeng, P.S. 1990. Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB)-a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 745–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI. 1997. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index American National Standard S3.5-1997.
   Google Scholar
• Arehart, K.H., Kates, J.M. & Anderson, M.C. 2011. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived music quality. Int J Audiol, 50, 177–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, T. & Moore, B.C. 1994. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 2277–2280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, T., Moore, B.C.J. & Gatehouse, S. 1993. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: Effects on intelligibility, quality and response times. J Rehabil Res Dev, 30, 49–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, D.L. & Schum, D.J. 2006. Directional hearing aids: Concepts and overview (2005). Hear J, 59: 40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, R., Walker, E., McCreery, R., Arenas, R.M. & Roush, P. 2014. Nonlinear frequency compression in hearing aids: Impact on speech and language development. Ear Hear, 35, e143–e152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, K.W., Hagberg, E.N. & Rane, R.L. 1980. A reexamination of the one-half gain rule. Ear Hear, 1, 223–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, V., Keidser, G., Buchholz, J.M. & Freeston, K. 2015. An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment. Int J Audiol, 54, 682–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, V., Keidser, G., Freeston, K. & Buchholz, J.M. 2016. A dynamic speech comprehension test for assessing real-world listening ability. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, 515–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beutelmann, R. & Brand, T. 2006. Prediction of speech intelligibility in spatial noise and reverberation for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 331–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beutelmann, R., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2010. Revision, extension, and evaluation of a binaural speech intelligibility model. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 2479–2497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, M., Sankowsky-Rothe, T., Kohler, S. & Schmidt, J.H. 2013. Using inter-individual standard deviation of hearing thresholds as a criterion to compare methods aimed at quantifying the acoustic input to the human auditory system in occluded ear scenarios. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 3544.
   Google Scholar
• Blauert, J. 1983. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bodden, M. 1993. Modeling human sound-source localization and the cocktail-party effect. Acta Acoustic, 1, 43–55.
   Google Scholar
• Brandenburg, K. & Popp, H. 2000. MPEG layer-3. EBU Tech Rev, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Brimijoin, W.O. & Akeroyd, M.A. 2016. The effects of hearing impairment, age, and hearing aids on the use of self-motion for determining front/back location. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, 588–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büchler, M., Allegro, S., Launer, S. & Dillier, N. 2005. Sound classification in hearing aids inspired by auditory scene analysis. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process, 2005, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, D. & Dillon, H. 1986. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear, 7, 257–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R. & Keidser, G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell, D.R. & Shields, P.W. 2003. Speech enhancement using sub-band adaptive Griffiths–Jim signal processing. Speech Commun, 39, 97–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y., Johnson, E.E., Hou, S., Dillon, H., Zhang, V., et al. 2013. A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: Predicted speech intelligibility and loudness. Int J Audiol, 52, S29–S38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colburn, H.S. & Durlach, N.I. 1978. Models of binaural interaction. In: Carterette & Friedmann (eds.) Hearing, Vol IV of Handbook of Perception. New York: Academic Press, pp. 467–518.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelis, B., Moonen, M. & Wouters, J. 2012. Speech intelligibility improvements with hearing aids using bilateral and binaural adaptive multichannel Wiener filtering based noise reduction. J Acoust Soc Am, 131, 4743–4755.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelisse, L.E., Seewald, R.C. & Jamieson, D.G. 1995. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1854–1864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dau, T., Kollmeier, B. & Kohlrausch, A. 1997. Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. II. Spectral and temporal integration. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2906–2919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dau, T., Püschel, D. & Kohlrausch, A. 1996. A quantitative model of the “tory system. I. Model structure” signal processing in the auditory system. I. Model. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 3615–3622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Cheveigné, A. 2016. Sparse time artifact removal. J Neurosci Methods, 262, 14–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Taillez, T., Grimm, G., Neher, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2018. Exploring interaural magnification in a simulated ‘binaural’ hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 57, S81-S91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vos, M., Gandras, K. & Debener, S. 2014. Towards a truly mobile auditory brain-computer interface: Exploring the P300 to take away. Int J Psychophysiol, 91, 46–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denk, F., Hiipakka, M., Kollmeier, B. & Ernst, S. 2018. An individualised acoustically transparent earpiece for hearing devices. Int J Audiol, 57, S62-S70.
   Google Scholar
• Derleth, R.P., Dau, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2001. Modeling temporal and compressive properties of the normal and impaired auditory system. Hear Res, 159, 132–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, H. 2012. Hearing Aids. New York: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Doclo, S., Spriet, A., Wouters, J. & Moonen, M. 2007. Frequency-domain criterion for the speech distortion weighted multichannel wiener filter for robust noise reduction. Speech Commun, 49, 636–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlach, N.I. 1963. Equalization and cancellation theory of binaural masking-level differences. J Acoust Soc Am, 35, 1206–1218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlach, N.I. & Pang, X.D. 1986. Interaural magnification. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 1849–1850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlach, N.I., Thompson, C.L. & Colburn, H.S. 1981. Binaural interaction of impaired listeners. A review of past research. Audiology, 20, 181–211.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elberling, C. 1999. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 248–260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elko, G.W. & Pong, A.T.N. 1995. A simple adaptive first-order differential microphone Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, 1995. IEEE ASSP Workshop on: IEEE, pp. 169–172.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R.J. & Munro, K.J. 2015. Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 54, 37–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ephraim, Y. & Malah, D. 1985. Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log spectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process, ASSP, 33, 443–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, T.H., Parsa, V., Santos, J.F., Arehart, K., Hazrati, O., et al. 2015. Objective quality and intelligibility prediction for users of assistive listening devices. IEEE Signal Process Mag, 32, 114–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleßner, J.H., Ewert, S.D., Kollmeier, B. & Huber, R. 2014. Quality assessment of multi-channel audio processing schemes based on a binaural auditory model. Proceedings of ICASSP, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Furman, A.C., Kujawa, S.G. & Liberman, M.C. 2013. Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol, 110, 577–586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerkmann, T., Krawczyk-Becker, M. & Le Roux, J. 2015. Phase processing for single-channel speech enhancement: History and recent advances. IEEE Signal Process Mag, 32, 55–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerkmann, T. & Krawczyk, M. 2013. MMSE-optimal spectral amplitude estimation given the STFT-phase. IEEE Signal Process Lett, 20, 129–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D.M. & Swets, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J.E., Zurek, P.M. & Brantley, M. 2000. Evaluation of feedback-reduction algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 2366–2376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Ewert, S. & Hohmann, V. 2015. Evaluation of spatial audio reproduction schemes for application in hearing aid research. Acta Acoust United Acoust, 101, 842–854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 2009. Increase and subjective evaluation of feedback stability in hearing aids by a binaural coherence-based noise reduction scheme. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Proc, 17, 1408–1419.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Kollmeier, B. & Hohmann, V. 2016. Spatial acoustic scenarios in multichannel loudspeaker systems for hearing aid evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, 557–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose, J.H. & Hall, J.W. 1992. Comodulation masking release for speech stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 1042–1050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafed, Z.M., Stingl, K., Bartz-Schmidt, K.U., Gekeler, F. & Zrenner, E. 2016. Oculomotor behavior of blind patients seeing with a subretinal visual implant. Vision Res, 118, 119–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, E.W., Yoho, S.E., Chen, J., Wang, Y. & Wang, D. 2015. An algorithm to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in novel segments of the same noise type. J Acoust Soc Am, 138, 1660–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 1995. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1191–1195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 2007. A nonlinear auditory filterbank controlled by sub-band instantaneous frequency estimates Hearing – From Sensory Processing to Perception: Springer, pp. 11–18.
   Google Scholar
• Holube, I. & Kollmeier, B. 1996. Speech intelligibility prediction in hearing-impaired listeners based on a psychoacoustically motivated perception model. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 1703–1716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwitz, A.R., Ahlstrom, J.B. & Dubno, J.R. 2007. Speech recognition in noise: Estimating effects of compressive nonlinearities in the basilar-membrane response. Ear Hear, 28, 682–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houtgast, T. & Steeneken, H.J.M. 1985. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 1069–1077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, R., Parsa, V. & Scollie, S. 2014. Predicting the perceived sound quality of frequency-compressed speech. PLoS One, 9, e110260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, R. & Kollmeier, B. 2006. PEMO-Q – A new method for objective audio quality assessment using a model of auditory perception. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 14, 1902–1911.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-T. 2004. In: IT Union (ed.) P.563 Single Ended Method for Objective Speech Quality Assessment in Narrow-band Telephony Applications. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-T. 2011. In: I.T. Union. (ed.). P.863 Perceptual Objective Listening Quality Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M., Seewald, R.C., Cornelisse, L.E. & Shantz, J. 1999. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: Aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear, 20, 117–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jepsen, M.L. & Dau, T. 2011. Characterizing auditory processing and perception in individual listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 262–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jepsen, M.L., Ewert, S.D. & Dau, T. 2008. A computational model of human auditory signal processing and perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 124, 422–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. 2012. Same or different – Comparing the latest NAL and DSL prescriptive targets. Audiology Online, http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/20q-same-or-different-comparing-769.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E.E. 2013. Modern prescription theory and application: Realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif, 17, 143–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jorgensen, S., Ewert, S.D. & Dau, T. 2013. A multi-resolution envelope-power based model for speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 436–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurgens, T., Ewert, S.D., Kollmeier, B. & Brand, T. 2014. Prediction of consonant recognition in quiet for listeners with normal and impaired hearing using an auditory model. J Acoust Soc Am, 135, 1506–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates, J.M. 2005. Principles of digital dynamic-range compression. Trends Amplif, 9, 45–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keidser, G., Brew, C. & Peck, A. 2003. Proprietary fitting algorithms compared with one another and with generic formulas. Hear J, 56, 28–38.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Carter, L. & O'Brien, A. 2012. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif, 16, 211–223.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Flax, M., Ching, T. & Brewer, S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res, 1, e24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kiessling, J., Brenner, B., Jespersen, C.T., Groth, J.A. & Dyrlund, O. 2005. Okklusionseffekt von Otoplastiken mit unterschiedlicher Belüftung – Quantifizierung und Prognose 50. Internationaler Hörgeräte-Akustiker-Kongress. Nürnberg: Europäische Union der Hörgeräteakustiker.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling, J., Brenner, B., Nelson, J., Dyrlund, O. & Groth, J.A. 2007. Feldstudie zum Nutzungsverhalten von Hörgeräten: Datalogging versus Selbsteinschätzung. Z Audiol, 47, 48–55.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling, J., Schubert, M. & Archut, A. 1996. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol, 25, 153–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klasen, T.J., Doclo, S., Van den Bogaert, T., Moonen, M. & Wouters, J. 2006. Binaural multi-channel Wiener filtering for hearing aids: preserving interaural time and level differences 2006 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings. New York: IEEE, pp. V–V.
   Google Scholar
• Kluk, K. & Moore, B.C. 2006. Dead regions in the cochlea and enhancement of frequency discrimination: Effects of audiogram slope, unilateral versus bilateral loss, and hearing-aid use. Hear Res, 222, 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochkin, S. 2010. MarkeTrak VIII: Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J, 63, 27–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B. 1996. Computer-controlled speech audiometric techniques for the assessment of hearing loss and the evaluation of hearing aids. In: Kollmeier, B. (ed.) Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids: Proceedings of the Summer School and international Symposium, Bad Zwischenahn, 31 August–5 September 1995. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 57-67.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B. 1999. On the four factors involved in sensorineural hearing loss. Psychophysics, Physiology and Models of Hearing. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 211–218.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B. & Koch, R. 1994. Speech enhancement based on physiological and psychoacoustical models of modulation perception and binaural interaction. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1593–1602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B., Peissig, J. & Hohmann, V. 1993. Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev, 30, 82–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B., Schädler, M.R., Warzybok, A., Meyer, B.T. & Brand, T. 2016. Sentence recognition prediction for hearing-impaired listeners in stationary and fluctuation noise with FADE: Empowering the Attenuation and Distortion concept by Plomp with a quantitative processing model. Trends in Hearing, 20. pii: 2331216516655795. DOI: 10.1177/2331216516655795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmeier, B., Warzybok, A., Ernst, S. & Schädler, M.R. 2016. Objective, individualized benefit prediction for hearing aid algorithms using automatic speech recognition: How far do we get with FADE? International Hearing Aid Conference (IHCON). Lake Tahoe.
   Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S. 2016. Characterization and Model-based Compensation of Suprathreshold Auditory Processing Deficits. Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S., Grimm, G., Hohmann, V., Kollmeier, B. & Ewert, S.D. 2016. Auditory model-based dynamic compression controlled by subband instantaneous frequency and speech presence probability estimates. IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 24, 1759–1772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreikemeier, S., Margolf-Hackl, S., Raether, J., Fichtl, E. & Kiessling, J. 2013. Comparison of different directional microphone technologies for hearing aid users with moderate to severe hearing loss. Hear Rev, 20, 44–45.
   Google Scholar
• Kujawa, S.G. & Liberman, M.C. 2009. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after “ noise-induced hearing loss” noise-induced hearing. J Neurosci, 29, 14077–14085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavandier, M. & Culling, J.F. 2010. Prediction of binaural speech intelligibility against noise in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 387–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavitt, R.J. & Flexer, C. 2012. The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hear Rev, 19, 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Leclere, T., Lavandier, M. & Culling, J.F. 2015. Speech intelligibility prediction in reverberation: Towards an integrated model of speech transmission, spatial unmasking, and binaural de-reverberation. J Acoust Soc Am, 137, 3335–3345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leifholz, M., Margolf-Hackl, S., Kreikemeier, S. & Kiessling, J. 2013. Wirkung von Frequenzkompression in Hörgeräten auf das Sprachverstehen und das subjektive Klangempfinden der Nutzer. HNO, 61, 335–343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner, T., Rudner, M. & Ronnberg, J. 2009. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol, 50, 395–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luts, H., Maj, J.B., Soede, W. & Wouters, J. 2004. Better speech perception in noise with an assistive multimicrophone array for hearing AIDS. Ear Hear, 25, 411–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lybarger, D.F. 1963. The Crum Family, Notes Concerning the Descendants of Anthony Crum, Sr., of Frederick County, Virginia. Cleveland.
   Google Scholar
• Lybarger, S. 1963. Simplified Fitting System for Hearing Aids. Canonsburg (PA): Radioear Corp.
   Google Scholar
• Maj, J.B., Royackers, L., Wouters, J. & Moonen, M. 2006. Comparison of adaptive noise reduction algorithms in dual microphone hearing aids. Speech Commun, 48, 957–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maj, J.B., Royackers, L., Moonen, M. & Wouters, J. 2005. SVD-based optimal filtering for noise reduction in dual microphone hearing aids: A real time implementation and perceptual evaluation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 52, 1563–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquardt, D., Hohmann, V. & Doclo, S. 2014. Perceptually motivated coherence preservation in multi-channel Wiener filtering based noise reduction for binaural hearing aids 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). New York: IEEE, pp. 3660–3664.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. 2001. Noise power spectral density estimation based on optimal smoothing and minimum statistics. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process, 9, 504–512.
   Google Scholar
• McCandless, G.A. & Lyregaard, P.E. 1983. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr, 34, 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• McCreery, R.W., Venediktov, R.A., Coleman, J.J. & Leech, H.M. 2012. An evidence-based systematic review of amplitude compression in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 21, 269–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCreery, R.W., Venediktov, R.A., Coleman, J.J. & Leech, H.M. 2012. An evidence-based systematic review of directional microphones and digital noise reduction hearing aids in school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 21, 295–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCreery, R.W., Venediktov, R.A., Coleman, J.J. & Leech, H.M. 2012. An evidence-based systematic review of frequency lowering in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 21, 313–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meister, H., Rahlmann, S., Walger, M., Margolf-Hackl, S. & Kiessling, J. 2015. Hearing aid fitting in older persons with hearing impairment: The influence of cognitive function, age, and hearing loss on hearing aid benefit. Clin Interv Aging, 10, 435–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B.T., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2011. Effect of speech-intrinsic variations on human and automatic recognition of spoken phonemes. J Acoust Soc Am, 129, 388–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, R.M. & Brand T. 2013. Comparison of different short-term speech intelligibility index procedures in fluctuating noise for listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Acta Acoust United Acoust, 99, 442–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirkovic, B., Debener, S., Jaeger, M. & De Vos, M. 2015. Decoding the attended speech stream with multi-channel EEG: Implications for online, daily-life applications. J Neural Eng, 12, 046007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C. 1996. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear, 17, 133–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C. & Fullgrabe, C. 2010. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression. Ear Hear, 31, 657–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C., Marriage, J., Alcantara, J. & Glasberg, B.R. 2005. Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 44, 345–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C. & Sek, A. 2012. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing aid fitting methods. Ear Hear, 34, 83–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. 1995. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. 2001. Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif, 5, 1–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. & Glasberg, B.R. 1983. Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 750–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. & Glasberg, B.R. 1987. Formulae describing frequency selectivity as a function of frequency and level, and their use in calculating excitation patterns. Hear Res, 28, 209–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, H.G. 2005. Fitting hearing aids to adults using prescriptive methods: An evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 448–460.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nordqvist, P. & Leijon, A. 2004. An efficient robust sound classification algorithm for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 115, 3033–3041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak, J., Liebetrau, J. & Sporer, T. 2013. On the perception of apparent source width and listener envelopment in wave field synthesis. 2013 Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). New York: IEEE, pp. 82–87.
   Google Scholar
• Oetting, D., Hohmann, V., Appell, J.E., Kollmeier, B. & Ewert, S.D. 2016. Spectral and binaural loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners. Hear Res, 335, 179–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostendorf, M., Hohmann, V. & Kollmeier, B. 1998. Klassifikation von akustischen Signalen basierend auf der Analyse von Modulationsspektren zur Anwendung in digitalenHörgeräten Fortschritte der Akustik DAGA '98. Zürich: DEGA, pp. 402–403.
   Google Scholar
• Pascoe, D.P. 1988. Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formulae for hearing aid gain. In: Jensen, J.H. (ed.) Hearing Aid Fitting, Theoretical and Practical Views. 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Danavox, pp. 129–151.
   Google Scholar
• Pastoors, A.D., Gebhart, T.M. & Kiessling, J. 2001. A fitting strategy for digital hearing aids based on loudness and sound quality. Scand Audiol, 52, 60–64.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, R.D., Nimmo-Smith, J., Weber, D.L. & Milroy, R. 1982. The deterioration of hearing with age: Frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 1788–1803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peissig, J., Albani, S., Wittkop, T., Woods, W.S. & Kollmeier, B. 1996. Enhancement of speech signals employing models of binaural interaction. Acoustic, 82, S91–S91.
   Google Scholar
• Picou, E.M. & Ricketts, T.A. 2011. Comparison of wireless and acoustic hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies. Ear Hear, 32, 209–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picou, E.M. & Ricketts, T.A. 2013. Efficacy of hearing-aid based telephone strategies for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 59–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieper, I., Mauermann, M., Kollmeier, B. & Ewert, S.D. 2016. Physiological motivated transmission-lines as front end for loudness models. J Acoust Soc Am, 139, 2896–2910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp, R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-perception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp, R. 1988. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp, R. 1994. Evaluating a speech-reception threshold-model for hearing-impaired listeners – Comments. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 586–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polonenko, M.J., Scollie, S.D., Moodie, S., Seewald, R.C., Laurnagaray, D., et al. 2010. Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0 a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol, 49, 550–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers, T.A., Branda, E. & Beilin, J. 2014. Clinical comparison of a manufacturer’s proprietary fitting algorithm to the NAL-NL2 prescriptive method. Audiology Online, Article 12708. Retrieved from: http://www.audiologyonline.com.
   Google Scholar
• Rennies, J., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2011. Prediction of the influence of reverberation on binaural speech intelligibility in noise and in quiet. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 2999–3012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhebergen, K.S., Versfeld, N.J. & Dreschler, W.A. 2006. Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 120, 3988–3997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J.D., Stainsby, T.H., Baer, T. & Moore, B.C. 2009. Evaluation of a frequency transposition algorithm using wearable hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 48, 384–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohdenburg, T., Goetze, S., Hohmann, V., Kammeyer, K.D. & Kollmeier, B. 2008. Objective perceptual quality assessment for self-steering binaural hearing aid microphone arrays. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. New York: IEEE, pp. 2449–2452.
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, J. 2003. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol, 42, S68–S76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sorqvist, P., Danielsson, H., et al. 2013. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sakamoto, S., Goto, K., Tateno, M. & Kaga, K. 2000. Frequency compression hearing aid for severe-to-profound hearing impairments. Auris Nasus Larynx, 27, 327–334.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanders, J., Stoody, T., Weber, J. & Mueller, H.G. 2015. Manufacturers' NAL-NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev, 21, 24–30.
   Google Scholar
• Schädler, M.R., Warzybok, A., Ewert, S.D. & Kollmeier, B. 2016. A simulation framework for auditory discrimination experiments: Revealing the importance of across-frequency processing in speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 139, 2708–2722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schadler, M.R., Warzybok, A., Hochmuth, S. & Kollmeier, B. 2015. Matrix sentence intelligibility prediction using an automatic speech recognition system. Int J Audiol, 54, 100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M., Bahram M. & Vary P. 2013. An extension of the PEAQ measure by a binaural hearing model. Proceedings of ICASSP 2013, pp. 8164–8168.
   Google Scholar
• Scollie, S., Seewald, R., Cornelisse, L., Moodie, S., Bagatto, M., et al. 2005. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seeber, B.U. & Hafter, E.R. 2013. Perceptual equalization of artifacts of sound reproduction via multiple loudspeakers Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics: Acoustical Society of America, p. 050045.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, R.V., Fu, Q.J. & Galvin, J., III. 2004. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 552, 50–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soede, W., Bilsen, F.A. & Berkhout, A.J. 1993. Assessment of a directional microphone array for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 799–808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soede, W., Bilsen, F.A., Berkhout, A.J. & Verschuure, J. 1993. Directional hearing aid based on array technology. Scand Audiol Suppl, 38, 20–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone, M.A., Moore, B.C., Alcantara, J.I. & Glasberg, B.R. 1999. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3603–3619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suelzle, D., Parsa, V. & Falk, T.H. 2013. On a reference-free speech quality estimator for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, EL412–EL418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumner, C.J., Lopez-Poveda, E.A., O'Mard, L.P. & Meddis, R. 2002. A revised model of the inner-hair cell and auditory-nerve complex. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2178–2188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tchorz, J. & Kollmeier, B. 2003. SNR estimation based on amplitude modulation analysis with applications to noise suppression. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process, 11, 184–192.
   Google Scholar
• Thibodeau, L. 2010. Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids. Am J Audiol, 19, 36–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, C.W. & Henry, B.A. 2002. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1675–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, C.W. & Hurtig, R.R. 1999. Proportional frequency compression of speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 877–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uslar, V.N. 2014. Speech Perception, Age, and Hearing Loss: Methods to Assess the Balance Between Bottom-up and Top-down Processing. Oldenburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Uslar, V.N., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 2015. Modeling the balance between bottom-up and top-down processing in speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 137, 2235.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Bogaert, T., Doclo, S., Wouters, J. & Moonen, M. 2009. Speech enhancement with multichannel Wiener filter techniques in multimicrophone binaural hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 360–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bogaert, T., Wouters, J., Doclo, S. & Moonen, M. 2007. Binaural cue preservation for hearing aids using an interaural transfer function multichannel Wiener filter 2007 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing-ICASSP'07. New York: IEEE, pp. IV-565–IV-568.
   Google Scholar
• van Wijngaarden, S.J. & Drullman, R. 2008. Binaural intelligibility prediction based on the speech transmission index. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 4514–4523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhey, J.L., Dau, T. & Kollmeier, B. 1999. Within-channel cues in comodulation masking release (CMR): Experiments and model predictions using a modulation-filterbank model. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 2733–2745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuure, J., Maas, A.J., Stikvoort, E., de Jong, R.M., Goedegebure, A., et al. 1996. Compression and its effect on the speech signal. Ear Hear, 17, 162–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villchur, E. 1977. Electronic models to simulate the effect of sensory distortions on speech perception by the deaf. J Acoust Soc Am, 62, 665–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Völker, C., Ernst, S.M. & Kollmeier, B. 2018. Modifications of the MUlti Stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology. Int J Audiol, 57, S92–S104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Völker, C., Warzybok, A. & Ernst, S.M. 2015. Comparing binaural pre-processing strategies III: Speech intelligibility of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear, 19, 2331216515618609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• vom Hövel, H. 1984. {Zur Bedeutung der Übertragungseigenschaften des Außenohres sowie des binauralen Hörsystems bei gestörter Sprachübertragung} Dissertation, RWTH Aachen, Germany: RWTH Aachen.
   Google Scholar
• von Ilberg, C.A., Baumann, U., Kiefer, J., Tillein, J. & Adunka, O.F. 2011. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: A review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol, 16, 1–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warzybok, A., Rennies, J., Brand, T., Doclo, S., Kollmeier, B. 2013. Effects of spatial and temporal integration of a single early reflection on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 269–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesselkamp, M., Margolf-Hackl, S. & Kiessling, J. 2001. Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies. Scand Audiol Suppl, 52, 73–75.
   Google Scholar
• Widrow, B. 1998. Directional hearing aid: Google Patents.
   Google Scholar
• Widrow, B. & Luo, F.L. 2003. Microphone arrays for hearing aids: An overview. Speech Commun, 39, 139–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittkop, T. & Hohmann, V. 2003. Strategy-selective noise reduction for binaural digital hearing aids. Speech Commun, 39, 111–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J., Luo, F.L. & Nehorai, A. 2003. Spectral contrast enhancement: Algorithms and comparisons. Speech Commun, 39, 33–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilany, M.S., Bruce, I.C. & Carney, L.H. 2014. Updated parameters and expanded simulation options for a model of the auditory periphery. J Acoust Soc Am, 135, 283–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilany, M.S., Bruce, I.C., Nelson, P.C. & Carney, L.H. 2009. A phenomenological model of the synapse between the inner hair cell and auditory nerve: Long-term adaptation with power-law dynamics. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 2390–2412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurek, P.M. 1990. Binaural advantages and directional effects in speech intelligibility. In: Hockberg, G.A.S.a.I. (ed.) Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 255–276.
   Google Scholar
• Zwicker, E. 1961. Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands (Frequenzgruppen). J Acoust Soc Am, 33, 248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar