Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings

References

• Arlinger, S.D. 2001. How to assess outcomes of hearing aid fitting in children. Scand Audiol Suppl, 53, 68–72.
   Google Scholar
• Bagatto, M., Moodie, S., Scollie, S., Seewald, R., Moodie, S., Pumford, J., Liu, R.K.P. 2005. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif, 9, 199–226.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne, D. 1986. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 80(2), 494–504.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Tran, K., Arlinger, S., Wilbraham, K. . 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(4), 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, D., Parkinson, A., Newall, P. 1990. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements of the severely/profoundly hearing-impaired. Ear Hear, 11, 40–49.
   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
• Ching, T.Y.C., Britton, L., Dillon, H., Agung, K. 2002. RECD, REAG, NAL-NL1: Accurate and practical methods for fitting non-linear hearing aids to infants and children. Hear Rev, 9(8), 12–20, 52.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., Wigney, D. 1994. Audio-visual and auditory paired comparison judgments by severely and profoundly hearing impaired children: Reliability and frequency response preferences. Aus J Audiol, 16, 99–106.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., Wigney, D. 1995. The reliability and sensitivity of intelligibility judgments by severely and profoundly hearing impaired children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 104(9), Suppl. 166, 151–153.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., Wigney, D. 1996. Frequency response and gain requirements of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children. Aust J Audiol, 18(2), 99–101.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., Wigney, D. 1999. Clinical use of paired comparisons to evaluate hearing aid fitting of severely/profoundly hearing impaired children. Aus New Zealand J Audiol, 21, 51–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Hill, M. 2007. The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/oral performance of Children (PEACH) scale: Normative data. J Am Acad Audiol, 18(3), 221–237.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Hill, M., Dillon, H. 2008. Effect of variations in hearing-aid frequency response on real-life functional performance of children with severe or profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 47(8), 461–475.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Seewald, R. (2010a) A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSLv.4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 49, S4–S15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Seewald, R., Britton, L., Steinberg, J. (2010b) Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S16–S25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, L.S., Levitt, H. 1991. Paired comparison judgments for hearing aid selection in children. Ear Hear, 12, 417–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, L.S., Dirks, D.D. 1995. Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 1157–1167.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, L.S., Dirks, D.D., Gornbein, J.A. 1997. Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear Hear, 18, 294–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golding, M., Pearce, W., Seymour, J., Cooper, A., Ching, T.Y.C., Dillon, H. 2007. The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in infants. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 117–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopun, J.G., Stelmachowicz, P.G. 1998. Perceived communication difficulties of children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 7, 30–38.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, H., Sullivan, J.A., Neuman, A.C., Rubin-Spitz, J.A. 1987. Experiments with a programmable master hearing aid. J Rehab Res Dev, 24, 29–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olsen WA. 1998. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/ listening conditions: A summary of the Pearson, Bennett, and Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol, 7, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Scollie, S.D., Ching, T.Y.c., Seewald, R., Dillon, H., Britton, L., Steinberg, J. (2010) Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. Int J Audiol, 49, S49–S63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seewald, R.C., Cornelisse, L.E., Ramji, K.V.. 1997. DSL v4.1 for Windows: A Software Implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL[i/o]) Method for Fitting Linear Gain and Wide-Dynamic-Range Compression Hearing Instruments. Users’ Manual. London, ON, Canada: Hearing Health Care Research Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Speaks, C., Parker, B., Harris, C., Kuhl, P. 1972. Intelligibility of connected discourse. J Speech Hear Res, 15, 590–602.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stelmachowicz, P.G. 1999. Hearing aid outcome measures for children. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 14–25.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1982. Hearing aid selection: An overview. G.A. Studebaker, F.H. Bess. The Vanderbilt Hearing-aid Report: State of the Art Research Needs. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, 147–155.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1991. Measures of intelligibility and quality. G. A. Studebaker, F. Bess, L. Beck. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 185–194.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A., Bisset, J.D., Van Ort, D.M., Hoffnung, S. 1982. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 80–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tecca, J.E., Goldstein, D.P. 1984. Effect of low-frequency hearing aid response on four measures of speech perception. Ear Hear, 5, 22–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidas, S., Hassan, R., Parnes, L.S. 1992. Real-life performance considerations of four pediatric multichannel cochlear implant recipients. J Otolaryngol 21, 387–393.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zerlin, S. 1962. A new approach to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res, 5, 370–376.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar