Hearing aid fitting and fine-tuning based on estimated individual traits

References

• Abrams, H., Edwards, B., Valentine, S. & Fitz, K. 2011. A patient-adjusted fine-tuning approach for optimizing the hearing aid response. Hear Rev, 18, 18–27.
   Google Scholar
• Amlani, A.M. & Schafer, E.C. 2009. Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing aids. Trends Amplif, 13, 241–259.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ANSI 20S3.5-1997. 1997. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. American National Standard.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgärtel, R.M., Krawczyk-Becker, M., Marquardt, D., Völker, C., Hu, H., et al. 2015. Comparing binaural pre-processing strategies I: Instrumental evaluation. Trends Hear, 19, 1–16.
   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
• Boymans, M. & Dreschler, W.A. 2012. Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments. Trends Amplif, 16, 49–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brons, I., Houben, R. & Dreschler, W.A. 2014. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear, 18, 1–10.
   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
• 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
• Coulter, A., Parsons, S. & Askham, J. 2008. Where are the patients in decision-making about their own care? In: WHO European Ministerial Conference on Health Systems: Health Systems, Health and Wealth. Tallinn, Estonia: Policy Brief.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, H. 2012. Hearing Aids. Second Edition. Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, H., Zakis, J., McDermott, H., Keidser, G., Dreschler, W., et al. 2006. The trainable hearing aid: What will it do for clients and clinicians? Hear J, 59, 30–36.
   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 Process, 17, 1408–1419.
   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-R — Radiocommunication Sector of ITU. 2014a. Recommendation ITU-R BS.1534-2 — Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of audio systems. BS series, Broadcasting service (sound). International Telecommunication Union.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-R — Radiocommunication Sector of ITU. 2014b. Report ITU-R BS.2300-0 — Methods for assessor screening. BS series, Broadcasting service (sound). International Telecommunication Union.
   Google Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M., Van Tasell, D.J. & Ewert, C. 2003. Hearing aid troubleshooting based on patients' descriptions. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 347–360.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kates, J.M. & Arehart, K.H. 2010. The hearing-aid speech quality index (HASQI). J Audio Eng Soc, 58, 363–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser, G. & Dillon, H. 2006. What’s new in prescriptive fittings down under? In: Palmer, C. & Seewald, R. (eds.), Hearing Care for Adults 2006: Proceedings of the First International Adult Conference. Chicago: Phonak AG, pp. 133–142.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling, J., Müller, M. & Latzel, M. 2006. Fitting strategies and candidature criteria for unilateral and bilateral hearing aid fittings. Int J Audiol, 45, 53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochkin, S. 2005. Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J, 58, 30–37.
   Google Scholar
• Kondo, K. 2012. Subjective Quality Measurement of Speech. Signals and Communication Technology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Leijon, A., Eriksson-Mangold, M. & Bech-Karlsen, A. 1984. Preferred hearing aid gain and bass-cut in relation to prescriptive fitting. Scand Audiol, 13, 157–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorho, G., Le Ray, G. & Zacharov, N. (2010). eGauge — A measure of assessor expertise in audio quality evaluations. In: Audio Engineering Society Conference: 38th International Conference: Sound Quality Evaluation. Audio Engineering Society, pp. 191–200.
   Google Scholar
• Luts, H., Eneman, K., Wouters, J., Schulte, M., Vormann, M., et al. 2010. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 1491–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzinzik, M. 2000. Noise Reduction Schemes for Digital Hearing Aids and Their Use for the Hearing Impaired. Aachen, Germany: Shaker-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, M.I., Mochon, D. & Ariely, D. 2012. The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. J Consum Psychol, 22, 453–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfitzinger, H.R. (2003). Acoustic correlates of the IPA vowel diagram. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2003, Volume 2. Barcelona, pp. 1441–1444.
   Google Scholar
• Völker, C., Bisitz, T., Huber, R., Kollmeier, B. & Ernst, S.M.A. Modifications of the multi stimulus test with hidden reference and anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology. Int J Audiol 2016a. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1220680. Early Online: 1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Völker, C., Grimm, G., Vormann, M., Hohmann, V., Kollmeier, B., et al. Development and evaluation of an unsupervised model-based multidimensional parameter optimization for hearing aid algorithms. Int J Audiol 2016b.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, L.L.N. 2011. Evidence on self-fitting hearing aids. Trends Amplif, 15, 215–225.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar