Safety limit warning levels for the avoidance of excessive sound amplification to protect against further hearing loss

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 Amer Acad Audiol, 23, 768–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (ANSI 3.5-1997-R2007). New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 2013. Methods of Measurement of Real-Ear Performance Characteristics of Hearing Aids (ANSI 3.46-2013). New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 2014. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics (ANSI 3.22-2014). New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, R.A. & Pavlovic, C.V. 1992. Addendum to “transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research”. Ear Hear, 13, 284–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgaard, N. 2014. Current approaches to hearing healthcare delivery: International perspective. Presentation at Hearing Loss and Healthy aging: An IOM-NRC Workshop.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Dillon, H. & Katsch, R. 2002. Do children require more high frequency audibility than adults with similar hearing losses? In: Seewald, R.C. & Gravel, J.S. (eds.) A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification 2001: Proceedings of the Second International Conference; Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG. pp. 141–52.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T., Johnson, E., Hou, S., Dillon, H., Zhang, V., et al. 2013a. A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing aid fittings: Estimates of speech intelligibility and loudness. Int J Audiol, 52(S2), S29–S38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T., Johnson, E., Seeto, M. & Macrae, J. 2013c. Hearing aid safety: A comparison of estimated hearing threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions for children. Int J Audiol, 52(S2), S39–S45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T., Leigh, G. & Dillon, H. 2013b. Introduction to the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI) study: Background, design, sample characteristics. Int J Audiol, 52(S2), S4–S9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. New York: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R., Johnson, J. & Xu, J. 2014. Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild-to-moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss. Gerontol, 60, 557–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crukley, J. & Scollie, S. 2012. Children’s speech recognition and loudness perception with the Desired Sensation Level v5 quiet and noise prescriptions. Amer J Audiol, 21, 149–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, H., Keidser, G., Ching, T.Y.C., Flax, M. & Brewer, S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Phonak Focus, 40, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Dolan, T.G. & Maurer, J.F. 1996. Noise exposure associated with hearing aid use in industry. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 251–260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Food and Drug Administration. 2009. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products relevant to Class I air-conduction hearing aids and PSAPs. Silver Springs (MD): Food and Drug Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Hnath-Chisolm, T.E., Laipply, E. & Boothroyd, A. 1998. Age-related changes on a children’s test of sensory-level speech perception capacity. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 94–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes, L.E. & Bess, F. 1981. Tutorial on the potential deterioration in hearing due to hearing aid usage. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 46, 3–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes, L.E. & Jesteadt, W. 1991. Modeling the interactions between noise exposure and other variables. J Acoust Soc Am, 90, 182–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Standards Organization (ISO) 1999. 1990. Acoustics – Determination of occupational exposure and estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Jesteadt, W. & Leibold, L. 2011. Loudness in the laboratory, Part I: Steady-state sounds. In: Florentine, M., Popper, A. & Fay R. (eds.) Loudness. New York: Springer, pp. 109–144.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E.E. & Dillon, H. 2011. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: Impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Amer Acad Audiol, 22, 441–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Flax, M., Ching, T. & Brewer, S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res, 1, 88–90.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin, S. 2010. MarkeTrak VIII: Utilization of PSAPs and direct-mail hearing aids by people with hearing impairment. Hear Rev, 17, 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kryter, K. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man: Second Edition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 238–239.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1985. Temporary and permanent threshold shift associated with hearing aid use. Aust J Audiol, 7, 45–53.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1990. Prediction of temporary threshold shift due to hearing aid use. Aust J Audiol, 12, 33–43.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1991. Permanent threshold shift associated with overamplification by hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 403–414.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1993. Temporary threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 365–372.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1994a. An investigation of temporary threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 227–237.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1994b. Prediction of asymptotic threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res, 37, 1450–1458.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Macrae, J.H. 1995. Temporary and permanent threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 949–959.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Markides, A. 1971. Do hearing aids damage the user’s residual hearing? (A literature survey). B J Audiol, 5, 99–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, J.H. 1982. Effects of noise on auditory sensitivity, psychophysical tuning curves, and suppression. In: Hamernik, R.P., Henderson, D. & Salvi, R. (eds.) New Perspectives in Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Raven: New York, pp. 249–263.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, J.H., Adkins, W.Y. & Gilbert, R.M. 1979. Temporary threshold shifts in humans exposed to octave bands of noise for 16-24 hours. J Acoust Soc A, 65, 1238–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J. & Glasberg, B.R. 2004. A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res, 188, 70–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1996. Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss - A Practical Guide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Publication No. 96-110.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1998. Criteria for a Recommended Standard. Occupational Noise Exposure. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Publication No. 98-126.
   Google Scholar
• Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.95). Occupational Noise Exposure Standard. Washington, D.C.: Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Occupational Health and Environmental Control, Occupational Noise Exposure.
   Google Scholar
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2015. Aging America & Hearing Loss: Imperative of Improved Hearing Technologies. Washington (DC): President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Scollie, S.D. 2008. Children’s speech recognition scores: The Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear, 29, 543–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie, S.D., Ching, T.Y.C., Seewald, R.C., Dillon, H., Britton, L., et al. 2010. Children’s speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49(S1), S26–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie, S., Seewald, R., Cornelisse, L., Moodie, S. & Bagatto, M. 2005. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smeds, K., Keidser, G., Zakis, J., Dillon, H., Leijon, A., et al. 2006a. Preferred overall loudness. I. Sound field presentation in the laboratory. Int J Audiol, 45, 2–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds, K., Keidser, G., Zakis, J., Dillon, H., Leijon, A., et al. 2006b. Preferred overall loudness. II. Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol, 45, 12–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Temkin, J. 1933. Die Schädigung des Ohres durch Lärm und Erschütterung. Monatsschrift Für Ohrenheilkunde Und Laryngo-Rhinologie, 67, 257–299.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, W.D. 1965. The concept of susceptibility to hearing loss. J Occup Med, 7, 595–607.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ward, W.D. 1968. Susceptibility to auditory fatigue. In: Neff, W.D., ed. Contributions to Sensory Physiology. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 191–226.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, W.D. 1973. Adaptation and fatigue. In: Jerger J, (ed.) Modern Developments in Audiology: Second Edition. The University of California: Academic Press, pp. 301–344.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, W.D. 1995. Endogenous factors related to susceptibility to damage from noise. Occup Med, 10, 561–575.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar