A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss

References

• Bench R.J. Doyle J. 1979. The Bamford-Kowal-Bench/Australian version (BKB/A) Standard Sentence Lists. Carlton, Victoria: Lincoln Institute.
   Google 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), 494–503.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Byrne D., Parkinson A. Newall P. 1991. Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. G. Studebaker, F. Bess, L. Beck Parkton: The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. M.D: York Press, 295–300.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron S., Dillon H. Newall P. 2006. The listening in spatialised noise test: An auditory processing disorder study. J Am Acad Audiol 17, 304–318.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Newall P. Wigney D. 1997. Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. Scand Audiol, 26, 219–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Zeal J Audiol, 21, 51–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H. Byrne D. 2001. Children's amplification needs: Same or different from adults? Scand Audiol, 30, Suppl 53, 54–60.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., O’Brien A., Dillon H., Chalupper J. Hartley L. . 2009. Directional effects on infants and young children in real life: Implications for amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 52, 1241–1254.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Seewald R., Britton L. . 2010a. 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
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Seewald R., Britton L. . 2010b. Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: paired-comparison judgments and functional performance ratings. Int J Audiol, 49, S35–S48.
   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
• Dillon H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for nonlinear hearing aids. The Hear J, 52(4), 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Jenstad L.M., Pumford J., Seewald R.C. Cornelisse L.E. 2000. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits II: Aided loudness measures. Ear Hear, 21, 32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Keidser G., Ching T., Dillon H., Agung K., Brew C. . 2002. The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) CDs of Speech and Noise for Hearing Aid Evaluation: Normative Data and Potential Applications. Aus & NZ J Audiol, 24(1), 16–35; 24(2), 107.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson M., Soli S.D. Sullivan J.A. 1994. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(2), 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Galster J. Tharpe A.M. 2007. Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments. Am J Audiol, 16, 130–144.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Seewald R.C., Moodie K.S. Dekok K. 2000. Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: Comparison to prescriptive targets. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 230–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R., Dillon H., Britton L. . (2010a). Speech perception and loudness ratings of children who used hearing aids fitted with the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S26–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R., Dillon H., Britton L. . (2010b). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 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: Hearing Health Care Research Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Seewald R.C., Moodie S.T., Scollie S.D. Bagatto M. 2005. The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues. Trends Amplification, 9(4), 145–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snik A.F., van den Borne S., Brokx J.P. Hoekstra C. 1995. Hearing-aid fitting in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Scand Audiol, 24, 225–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snik A.F.M. Stollman M.H.P. 1995. Measured and calculated insertion gains in young children. Br J Audiol, 29, 7–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Dalzell S., Peterson D., Kopun J., Lewis D.L. . 1998. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear, 19, 131–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1982. Hearing aid selection: An overview. G.A. Stude-baker 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), 455–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Buuren R., Festen J. Plomp R. 1995. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 38(2), 211–221.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vidas S., Hassan R. Parnes L.S. 1992. Real-life performance considerations of four pediatric multichannel cochlear implant recipients. J Oto-laryngol, 21, 387–393.
   Google Scholar
• Zakis J.A., McDermott H.J. Dillon H. 2007. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters. Ear Hear, 28(6), 812–830.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar