A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: Predicted speech intelligibility and loudness

References

• American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index, (ANSI S3.5-1997. (R2007)). New York, USA. American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R. 1994. External ear resonance characteristics in children. J Speech Hear Dis, 54, 264–268.
   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. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Crowe K., Martin V., Day J., Mahler N. et al. 2010c. Language development and everyday functioning of children with hearing loss assessed at 3 years of age. Int J Speech Lang Path, 12, 124–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 1998. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high frequency audibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1128–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Hou S., Zhang V., Day J. et al. (this issue). A randomized controlled comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptions for children: Hearing-aid characteristics and performance outcomes at 3 years of age. Int J Audiol.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Katsch R. & Byrne D. 2001. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing-aid fitting. Ear Hear, 22, 212–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Lockhart F., Van Wanrooy E. & Flax M. 2011. Audibility and speech intelligibility revisited: Implications for amplification. In: T. Dau, J.C. Dalsgaard, M.L. Jepsen & T. Poulsen (eds.). Speech Perception and Auditory Disorders, 3rd International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research.The Danavox Jubilee Foundation, Denmark, pp. 11–19.
   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, 221–237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H. & Seewald R.C. 2010a. 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. Int J Audiol, 49, S4–S15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Britton L., Steinberg M.J. et al. 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
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H., Seewald R.C., Britton L. et al. 2010d. Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance rating. Int J Audiol, 49, S35–S48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelisse L., Seewald R. & Jamieson D. 1995. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1854–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J, 52, 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2012. Hearing Aids. Second Edition. Sydney, Australia: Boomerang Press.
   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
• 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
• Gustafson S.J. & Pittman A.L. 2011. Sentence perception in listening conditions having similar speech intelligibility indices. Int J Audiol, 50, 34–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Am Acad Audiol, 22, 441–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King A.M. 2010. The national protocol for paediatric amplification in Australia. Int J Audiol, 49, S64–S69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macrae J.H. 1994. 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
• Macrae J.H. 1996. Deterioration of thresholds associated with hearing-aid use. Aust J Audiol, 18, 73–80.
   Google Scholar
• McCreery R.W. & Stelmachowicz P.G. 2011. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 130, 4070–4081. doi: 10.1121/1.3658476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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., 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. 1999. 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. & 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. & Stone M.A. 2010. Development of a new method for deriving initial fitting for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol, 49, 216–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C.V. 1994. Band importance functions for audiological applications. Ear Hear, 15, 100–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C.V., Studebaker G.A. & Sherbecoe R.L. 1986. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 50–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rankovic C. 1991. An application of the articulation index to hearing-aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 391–402.
   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. 2008. Children's speech recognition scores: The speech recognition scores: The speech intelligibility index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear, 29, 4, 543–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Seewald R.C., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M. et al. 2005. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R.C., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. 2010a. 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, S26–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R.C., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. 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
• Serpanos Y.C. & Gravel J.S. 2004. Revisiting loudness measures in children using a computer method of cross-modality matching (CMM). J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 486–497.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seewald R.C., Moodie S.T. & Scollie S.D. 2005. The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues. Trends Amplif, 9, 145–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seewald R.C., Cornelisse L.E., Ramji K.V., Sinclair S., Moodie K. et al. 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, Ontario: Hearing Health Care Research Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G. 1999. Hearing-aid outcome measures for children. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 14–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P., Lewis D., Kalberer A. & Creutz T. 1994. Situational hearing-aid response profile (SHARP, Version 2.0). User's manual. Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Sherbecoe R.L., McDaniel D.M. & Gray G.A. 1997. Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. J Am Acad Audiol, 8, 150–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar