Predictors of aided speech recognition, with and without frequency compression, in older adults

References

• Adank P. & Janse E. 2010. Comprehension of a novel accent by young and elderly listeners. Psychol Aging, 25, 736–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akeroyd M.A. 2008. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol, 47, S53–S71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arehart K.H., Souza P., Baca R. & Kates J.M. 2013. Working memory, age, and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing-aid distortion. Ear Hear, 34, 251–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A.D. & Hitch G.J. 1974. Working memory. In: G.H. Bower (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Volume 8), New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–90.
   Google Scholar
• Cabin R.J. & Mitchell R.J. 2000. To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: When and how are the questions. Bull Ecol Soc Am, 81, 246–248.
   Google Scholar
• Cook D.R. & Weisberg S. 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Xu J. 2010. Short and long compression release times: Speech understanding, real world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 121–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneman M & Carpenter P.A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading, J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 19, 450–466.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Keidser G., Ching T.Y.C. et al. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Phonak Focu, 40, Switzerland: Phonak AG.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis R.J. & Munro K.J. (2015)Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 54, 37–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis R.J. & Munro K.J. 2013. Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition? Int J Audiol, 52, 14–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engle R.W. 2002. Working memory capacity as executive attention, Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 11, 19–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. 1992. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1258–1268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006b. Linear and nonlinear hearing-aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glista D., Scollie S., Bagatto M., Seewald R., Parsa V. et al. 2009. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: Clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol, 48, 632–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargus S.E. & Gordon-Salant S. 1995. Accuracy of speech intelligibility index predictions for noise-masked young listeners with normal hearing and for elderly listeners with hearing impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 38, 234–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. 2007. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H.R., Flax M., Ching T. & Brewer S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res, doi:10.4081/audiores.2011.e24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing-aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Huss M., Vickers D.A., Glasberg B.R. & Alcántara J.I. 2000. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol, 34, 205–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. & Stone M.A. 2004. New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL. Ear Hear, 25, 478–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reitan R.M. 1958. Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills, 8, 271–276.
   Google Scholar
• Reitan R.M. 1992 Trail making test: Manual for administration and scoring. Neuropsychology Laboratory. Arizona: Reitan.
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J. 2003. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. Int J Audiol, 42, s68–s76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Arlinger S., Lyxell B. & Kinnefors C. 1989. Visual evoked potentials: Relations to adult speech-reading and cognitive function. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 32, 725–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Foo C. & Lunner T. 2008. Cognition counts: A working memory system of ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol, 47, s99–s105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg J., Lunner L., Zekveld A., Sörqvist P., Danielsson H. et al. 2013. The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 31. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.0003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rothauser E.H., Chapman W.D., Guttman N., Nordby K.S., Silbiger H. et al. 1969. IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Acoust, 17, 227–246.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner M. & Rönnberg J. 2008. The role of the episodic buffer in working memory for language processing. Cogn Pro, 9, 19–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner M., Foo C., Sundewall-Thorén E., Lunner T. & Rönnberg J. 2008Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 47, S91–S98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders G.H. & Cienkowski K.M. 1997. Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear, 18, 129–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson A., Hersbach A.A. & McDermott H.J. 2005. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol, 44, 281–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson A., Hersbach A.A. & McDermott H. J. 2006. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol, 45, 619–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tun P.A. & Wingfield A. 1999. One voice too many: Adult age differences in language processing with different types of distracting sounds. J Gerontol Psychol Sci, 54, 317–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers D.A., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 2001. Effects of low-pass 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
• Wilson R.H., McArdle R.A. & Smith S.L. 2007. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 844–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J., John A., Schafer E., Nyffeler M., Boretzki M. et al. 2010. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 618–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe J., John A., Schafer E., Nyffeler M., Boretzki M. et al. 2011. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 50, 396–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar