Own voice qualities (OVQ) in hearing-aid users: There is more than just occlusion

References

• Ahlstrom J.B., Horwitz A.R., Dubno J.R. 2009. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing aids. Ear Hear, 30, 203–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akeroyd M., Gatehouse S., Blaschke J. 2007. The detection of differences in the cues to distance by elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1077–1089.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bland J.M., Altman D.G. 1997. Cronbach's alpha. British Medical Journal, 314(7080), 572.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Borg I., Groenen P. 1997. Modern Multidimensional Scaling. Theory and Applications. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Carhart R. 1947. Conservation of speech. H. Davis. Hearing and Deafness. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 300–317.
   Google Scholar
• Carle R., Laugesen S., Nielsen C. 2002. Observations on the relations among occlusion effect, compliance and vent size. J Am Acad Audiol, 13, 25–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cornelisse L.E., Gagné J.P., Seewald R.C. 1991. Ear level recordings of the long-term average spectrum of speech. Ear Hear, 12, 47–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16, 176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. 1999. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear, 20, 306–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Hyde M., Gatehouse S., Noble W., Dillon H. 2000. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear, 21, 106S–115S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. New York: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Drennan W.R., Gatehouse S., Howell P., Tassel D.V., Lund S. 2005. Localization and speech-identification ability of hearing-impaired listeners using phase-preserving amplification. Ear Hear, 26, 461–472.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flynn M.C. 2003. Opening ears: The scientific basis for an open ear acoustic system. Hearing Review, 10(5), 34–37, 67.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn M.C., Lunner T. 2005. Clinical verification of a hearing aid with artificial intelligence. Hear J, 58(2), 34–38.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 1999. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 80–103.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 2005. Evaluating the effectiveness of hearing aid fittings in service delivery and research contexts. A.N. Rasmussen, T. Poulsen, T. Andersen, C.B. Larsen. Hearing Aid Fitting, Proceedings of the 21th Danavox Symposium. Denmark: Centertryk, 423–437.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Akeroyd M. 2006. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol, 45 Suppl. 1, S120–S124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Akeroyd M. 2008. The effects of cueing temporal and spatial attention on word recognition in a complex listening task in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Amplif, 12, 145–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Elberling C., Naylor G. 1999. Aspects of auditory ecology and psychoacoustic function as determinants of benefits from and candidature for nonlinear processing in hearing aids. A.N. Rasmussen, P.A. Osterhammel, T. Andersen, T. Poulsen. Auditory Models and Nonlinear Hearing Instruments. Proceedings of the 18^th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Holmens Trykkeri, 221–233.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elberling C. 2006. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnewikow D., Moss M. 2006. Hearing aid outcomes with open-and closed-canal fittings. Hear J, 59(11), 66–72.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen M.Ø. 1997. Occlusion effects. Part I: Hearing aid users’ experiences of the occlusion effect compared to the real ear sound level. Ph.D. thesis, Report no. 71, Dept. of Acoustic Technology, Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen N.S., Maas P., Nielsen C., Laugesen S., Flynn M. 2006. A first attempt at a comprehensive Own Voice Qualities (OVQ) questionnaire. Poster presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference (IHCON), Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, August 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 7029. 2000. Acoustics: Statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age. International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Kiessling J., Brenner B., Jespersen C.T., Groth J., Dyrlund Jensen O. 2005. Occlusion effect of earmolds with different venting systems. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 237–249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion M.C., Wilber L.A., Gudmundsen G.I. 1988. Zwislocki was right…. Hearing Instruments, 39(1), 14–18.
   Google Scholar
• Kuk F., Keenan D., Lau C. 2005. Vent configurations on subjective and objective occlusion effect. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 747–762.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuk F., Keenan D., Lau C. 2009. Comparison of vent effects between a solid earmold and a hollow earmold. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 480–491.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laugesen S., Jensen N.S., Maas P., Nielsen C. 2008. Self-perceived own-voice level and sound quality in hearing-aid users. Hearing Review, 15(1), 28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Laugesen S., Nielsen C., Maas P., Jensen N.S. 2009. Observations on hearing-aid users’ strategies for controlling the level of their own voice. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 503–513.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laugesen S., Vestergaard H., Nielsen C. 2005. Common conceptions about first-time versus experienced hearing aid users: Facts or fiction? A.N. Rasmussen, T. Poulsen, T. Andersen, C.B. Larsen. Hearing Aid Fitting, Proceedings of the 21th Danavox Symposium. Denmark: Centertryk, 261–286.
   Google Scholar
• Likert R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl. 1, S49–S58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles J., Shevlin M. 2001. Applying Regression & Correlation. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Milliken G.A., Johnson D.E. 2002. Analysis of Messy Data Volume III: Analysis of Covariance. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen C., Laugesen S. 2000. CICs without occlusion – do believe the hype? Instructional course presented at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Chicago, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Oticon. 2008. Epoq Fitting Guide. Oticon, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen C., Laugesen S. 2004. Why own voice is different. Instructional course presented at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Salt Lake City, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Noble W., Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, speech and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) disability, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43, 100–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Gatehouse S. 2006. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 45, 172–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Tyler R., Dunn C., Bhullar N. 2008. Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: Comparing self-assessed and measured abilities. Int J Audiol, 47, 505–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politzer A. 1881. Ein kleines Instrument für Schwerhörige. Wien Med Wochenschr, 18, 505–508.
   Google Scholar
• Ring L., Höfer S., Heuston F., Harris D., O’Boyle C.A. 2005. Response shift masks the treatment impact on patient reported outcomes (PROs): The example of individual quality of life in edentulous patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 3, 55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sprangers M.A., Van Dam F.S., Broersen J., Lodder L., Wever L. . 1999. Revealing response shift in longitudinal research on fatigue: The use of the then-test approach. Acta Oncol, 38, 709–718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor B. 2006. Real-world satisfaction and benefit with open-canal fittings. Hear J, 59(11), 74–82.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeire K., Van de Heyning P. 2007. Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiol Neurotol, 14, 163–171.
   Google Scholar
• Vestergaard M.D. 2006. Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users: Longitudinal trends and relationships between subjective measures of benefit and satisfaction. Int J Audiol, 45, 382–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar