Sound quality judgements of new hearing instrument users over a 24-week post-fitting period Juicios sobre la calidad del sonido en nuevos usuarios de auxiliares auditivos durante un período de 24 semanas después de la adaptación

References

• American National Standards Institute 1997. American National Standard methods for the calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger, S., Gatehouse, S., Bentler, R.A., Byrne, D., Cox, R.M., et al. 1996. Report of the Eriksholm workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatisation. Ear Hear, 17, 87S-98S.
   Google Scholar
• Balfour, PB. & Hawkins, D.B. 1992. A comparison of sound quality judgements for monaural and binaural hearing instrument processed stimuli. Ear Hear, 5, 331–9.
   Google Scholar
• Bench, J., Kowal, A. & Bamford, J. 1979. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol, 13, 108–12.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, R.A., Neibuhr, D.P., Getta, J.P & Anderson, C.V 1993a. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness I: Objective measures. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 808–819.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, R.A., Neibuhr, D.P., Getta, J.P. & Anderson, C.V. 1993b. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness II: Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 820–831.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boothroyd A., Hanin L., & Hnath T. 1985. A sentence test of speech perception: reliability, set equivalence, and short-term learning. City University of New York Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Center, Internal Report No RC 110.
   Google Scholar
• British Society of Audiology 1981. Recommended procedures for pure-tone audiometry using a manually operated instrument. Br J Audiol, 15, 213–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• British Society of Audiology 1987. Recommended procedures for uncomfortable loudness level (ULL). Br J Audiol, 21, 231.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1992. Maturation of hearing instrument benefit: Objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear, 13, 131 — 41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C, Taylor, I.M. & Gray, GA. 1996. Benefit acclimatisation in elderly hearing instrument users. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 428–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demany, L. 1985. Perceptual learning in frequency discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am, 78, 1118–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 1984. A procedure for subjective quality rating of hearing instruments. NAL report No. 100, Camberra, Australia: Government Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, J.R. & Haggard, M.P FAAF. 1979. An effective analytical test of speech perception. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 182, 9 — 12.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, J.R. & Haggard, M.P. 1987. The Four Alternative Auditory Feature test (FAAF): Linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol, 21, 165–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. & Hagerman, B. 1988. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgements and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res, 31, 166–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. 1992. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatisation to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing instruments. J Acoust Soc Am, 92, 1258–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. 1993. Role of perceptual acclimatisation in the selection of frequency responses for hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol, 4, 296–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. & Robinson, K. 1996. Acclimatisation to monaural hearing instrument fitting- effects on loudness functions and preliminary evidence for parallel electrophysiological and behavioural effects. In B. Kollmeier (ed.), Psychoacoustics, speech and hearing instruments. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 319–30.
   Google Scholar
• Harford, E.R. & Fox, J. 1978. The use of high-pass amplification for broad-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology, 17, 10–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horwitz, A.R. & Turner, C.W. 1997. The time course of hearing instrument benefit. Ear Hear, 8, 1 — 11.
   Google Scholar
• Humes, L.E., Halling, D. & Coughlin, M. 1996. Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 923–935.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes, L.E., Wilson, D.L., Barlow, N.N. & Garner, C. 2002. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Hear Re, 45, 772–782.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. 1998. Acoustics - Audiometric test methods. Part 2: Sound field audiometry with pure-tone and narrow-band test signals. ISO 8253-2. Geneva:.ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Irvine, D.R.F, Martin, R.L., Klimkeit, E. & Smith, R. 2000. Specificity of perceptual learning in a frequency discrimination task. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 2964–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser, G, Dillon, H. & Byrne, D. 1995. Candidates for multiple frequency response characteristics. Ear Hear, 16, 562–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, K.J. & Lutman, M.E. 2000. Auditory acclimatisation to amplified speech. Poster presentation at IHCON 2000, Lake Tahoe.
   Google Scholar
• Munro, K.J. & Lutman, M.E. 2003. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatisation to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ovegard, A., Lundberg, G, Hagerman, B., Gabrielsson, A., Bengtsson, M., et al. 1997. Sound quality judgement during acclimatisation of hearing instrument. Scan Audiol, 26, 43–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, C.V, Nelson, C.T. & Lindley, GA. 1998. The functionally and physiologically plastic adult auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1705–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L., & Fidells S. 1977. Speech levels in various noise environments (Report No. EPA–600/1–77–025). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, K. & Gatehouse, S. 1995. Changes in intensity discrimination following monaural long–term use of a hearing instrument. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1183–90.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, K. & Gatehouse, S. 1996. The time course of effects on intensity discrimination following monaural fitting of hearing instruments. J Acoust Soc Am, 99, 1255–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, K. & Summerfield, A.Q. 1996. Adult auditory learning and training. Ear Hear, 17, 51S-65S. Saunders, GH. & Cienkowski, K.M. 1997. Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear, 18, 129–139.
   Google Scholar
• Seewald R.C., Ramji K.V, Sinclair S.T., Moodie K.S., & Jamieson D.S. 1993. A computer-assisted implementation of the desired sensation level method for electroacoustic selection and fitting in children.
   Google Scholar
• Surr, R.K., Cord, M.T. & Walden, B.E. 1998. Long–term versus short–term hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 9, 165–171.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor, K.S. 1993. Self-perceived and audiometric evaluations of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear and Hearing, 14, 390–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, C.W & Bentler, R.A. 1998. Does hearing instrument benefit increase over time Letter to editor. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 3673–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, C.W, Humes, L.E., Bentler, R.A. & Cox, R.M. 1996. A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time. Ear Hear Suppl, 17, 14S–28S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, B.A., Buonomano, D.V., Mahnvcke, H.W & Merzenich, M.M. 1997. Learning and generalisation of auditory temporal–interval discrimination in humans. J Neurosci, 17, 3956–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, B.A. & Fitzgerald, M.B. 2001. Different patterns of human discrimination learning for two interaural cues to sound-source localisation. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 98, 12307–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar