Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids

References

• Arlinger S., Billermark E., Oberg M., Lunner T., Hellgren J. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1997; 27: 51–61
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R. A., Niebuhr D. P., Johnson T. A. , Flamme G. A. Impact of digital labelling on outcome measures. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 215–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boymans M., Dreschler W. A., Schoneveld P., Verschuure H. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. Audiology 1999; 38: 99–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H. The national acoustic laboratories (NAL)new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of ahearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelisse L. E., Seewald R. C. , Jamieson D. G. Wide dynamicrange compression hearing aids: the DSL (i/o) approach. Hear J 1994; 47: 23–29
   Google Scholar
• Cox R. M. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit(APHAB)-administration and application. Phonak Focusno 1996; 21
   Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G. The abbreviated profile of hearing aidbenefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176–186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Storey L. The National Acoustic Laboratories' procedure for selecting the saturation sound pressure level of hearingaids: theoretical derivation. Ear Hear 1998; 19: 255–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster J. R. , Haggard M. P. Introduction and test manual forFAAF II: the Four Alternative Auditory Feature Test. IHR InternalReport Series B, No. 11/37, 1984
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of AdultHearing Aid Fittings and Services. Scientific and Technical Report. February, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivationand validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aidservices. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 80–103
   Google Scholar
• Green R., Day S., Bamford J. A comparative evaluation of fourhearing-aid selection procedures. II-Quality judgements as measuresof benefit. Br J Audiol 1989; 23: 201–206
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hickson L., Timm M., Worral L., Bishop K. Hearing aid fitting:outcomes for older adults. Aust J Audiol 1999; 21: 9–21
   Google Scholar
• Humes L. E., Christensen L. A., Thomas T., Bess F., Hedley-Williams A., et al. A comparison of the aided performance and benefit providedby a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compressionhearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 65–79
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenstad M. L., Pumford J., Seewald R. C. , Cornelisse L. E. . Comparison of linear gain wide dynamic range compressionhearing aid circuits II: aided loudness measures. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 32–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad M. L., Seewald R. C., Cornelisse L. E. , Shantz J. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compressionhearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 117–126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiessling J., Pfreimer C., Dyrelund O. Clinical evaluation ofthree different loudness scaling protocols. Scand Audiol 1997; 26: 117–121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiessling J., Schubert M., Archut A. Adaptive fitting of hearinginstruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). ScandAudiol 1996; 25: 153–160
   Google Scholar
• Larson V. D., Williams D. W., Henderson W. G., Luethke L. E., Beck L. B., et al. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: acrossover trial. JAMA 2000; 284: 1806–1813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maki-Torkko E. M., Brorsson B., Davis A., Mair I. W., Myhre K. I., et al. Hearing impairment among adults-extent of the problemand scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation. Scand Audiol 2001; 30(suppl 54)8–15
   Google Scholar
• Moore B. C.J., Seloover Johnson J., Clark T. M. , Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual channel full dynamic range compression systemfor people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 349–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman C. W. , Sandridge S. A. Benefit from, satisfaction with,and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 115–128
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parving A. Improved benefit from new hearing aid (HA)technology-fact or fiction?. J Audiol Med 2001; 10: 5–8
   Google Scholar
• Parving A., Sorensen M. S., Carver K., Christensen B., Sibelle P., et al. Hearing instruments and health technology-an evaluation. Scand Audiol 1997; 26: 231–237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schum D. Adaptive speech alignment: a new fitting rationalemade possible by DSP. Hear J 1996; 49(5)28–30
   Google Scholar
• Summerfield A. Q. , Marshall D. H. Preoperative predictors ofoutcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: performance andquality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 105–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swan I. R.C. , Gatehouse S. The value of routine in-the-ear measurementof hearing aid gain. Br J Audiol 1995; 29: 271–277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor R. S., Paisley S., Davis A. Systematic review of the clinicaland cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids. Br J Audiol 2001; 35: 271–288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente M., Fabry D. A., Potts L. G. , Sandlin R. E. Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analoguehearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9: 342–360
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valente M., Sweetow R., Potts L. G. , Bingea B. Digital versusanalogue signal: effect of directional microphone. J Am AcadAudiol 1999; 10: 133–147
   Google Scholar