Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF

References

• Aazh H., Moore B.C.J. 2007. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 655–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcántara J.I., Moore B.C.J., Marriage J.E. 2004. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. Int J Audiol, 43, 3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI 1997. ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI 2007. ANSI S3.4-2007. Procedure for the computation of loudness of steady sounds. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R.A., Pavlovic C.V. 1989. Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear, 10, 58–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Burkhard M.D., Sachs R.M. 1975. Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. J Acoust Soc Am, 58, 214–222.
   PubMed 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
• 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, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelisse L.E., Seewald R.C. 1997. Field-to-microphone transfer functions for completely-in-the-canal (CIC) instruments. Ear Hear, 18, 342–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C., Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology, 40, 148–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fletcher H. 1940. Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys, 12, 47–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C., Baer T., Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. 2009. Preliminary evaluation of a method for fitting hearing aids with extended bandwidth. (submitted).
   Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. 1986. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am, 79, 1020–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. 1990. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear Res, 47, 103–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamacher V. 2006. Perzeptive Evaluierung von Methoden zur Sprachverbesserung in modernen digitalen Hörgeräten. Sprachkommunikation 2006 (ITG-FB 192), Kiel.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C., Revit L.J. 1987. Insertion gain repeatability versus loudspeaker location: You want me to put my loudspeaker where? Ear Hear, 8, 68S–73S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M.C., Tillman T.W. 1982. Evaluation of high-fidelity hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res, 25, 15–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marriage J.E., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I. 2004. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol, 43, 198–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 1986. Parallels between frequency selectivity measured psychophysically and in cochlear mechanics. Scand Audiol, Suppl. 25, 139–152.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2000. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore ‘normal’ loudness for speech at different levels. Br J Audiol, 34, 165–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2003. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 5th. San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2004. Dead regions in the cochlea: Conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear, 25, 98–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2005. The use of a loudness model to derive initial fittings for hearing aids: Validation studies. T. Anderson, C.B. Larsen, T. Poulsen, A.N. Rasmussen, J.B. Simonsen Hearing Aid Fitting, Denmark: Holmens Trykkeri, 11–33.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I., Marriage J.E. 2001. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally. Br J Audiol, 35, 339–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I., Stone M.A., Glasberg B.R. 1999a. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol, 33, 157–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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. 1997. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neurosci, 3, 289–311.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. 1998. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 32, 317–335.
   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
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Baer T. 1997. A model for the prediction of thresholds, loudness, and partial loudness. J Audio Eng Soc, 45, 224–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Stone M.A. 1999b. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol, 33, 241–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Stainsby T.H., Alcántara J.I., Kühnel V. 2004. The effect on speech intelligibility of varying compression time constants in a digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 43, 399–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Glasberg B.R., Puria S. 2008. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear, 29, 907–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Tan C.T. 2003. Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 408–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Hawkins D.B., Northern J.L. 1992. Probe Microphone Measurements: Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Diego, CA: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen W.O. 1998. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: A summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol, 7, 21–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L., Fidell S. 1976. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
   Google Scholar
• Plyler P.N., Lowery K.J., Hamby H.M., Trine T.D. 2007. The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 50, 15–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pumplin J. 1985. Low-noise noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 100–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revit L.J. 2000. Real-ear measures. M. Valente, H. Hosford-Dunn, R.J. Roeser Audiology: Treatment, New York: Thieme, 105–146.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Dittberner A.B., Johnson E.E. 2008. High frequency amplification and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 160–172.
   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
• Shaw E.A.G. 1974. Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1848–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M.W., Miller J.D. 1983. Amplification bandwidth and intelligibility of speech in quiet and noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology, 22, 253–279.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smeds K. 2004. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear, 25, 159–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A. . 2006. 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
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. 2003. Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1023–1034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. 2004a. Estimated variability of Real Ear Insertion Response (REIR) with loudspeaker type and placement. Int J Audiol, 43, 271–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. 2004b. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2311–2323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. 2008. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multi-channel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1063–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara 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
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Meisenbacher K., Derleth R.P. 2008. Tolerable hearing-aid delays. V. Estimation of limits for open canal fittings. Ear Hear, 29, 601–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuure J., Prinsen T.T., Dreschler W.A. 1994. The effect of syllabic compression and frequency shaping on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired people. Ear Hear, 15, 13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers D.A., Moore B.C.J., Baer T. 2001. Effects of lowpass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1164–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwicker E. 1970. Masking and psychological excitation as consequences of the ear's frequency analysis. R. Plomp, G.F. Smoorenburg, Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, Leiden: Sijthoff, 376–394.
   Google Scholar