References
- American National Standards Institute. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. ANSI S3.5-1997. ANSI, New York 1997
- Byrne D., Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–265
- Byrne D., Dillon H., Ching T., Katsch R., Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 37–51
- Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K., et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96: 2108–2120
- Cornelisse L.E., Seewald R.C., Jamieson D.G. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 1854–1864
- Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176–186
- Kiessling J. Scaling methods for the selection, fitting and evaluation of hearing aids. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, B. Kollmeier. World Scientific, Singapore 1997; 297–306
- Kiessling J., Schubert M., Archut A. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 1996; 25: 153–160
- Laurence R.F., Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear aids and two-channel compression hearing aids in the laboratory and in everyday life. Br J Audiol 1983; 17: 31–48
- Lippmann R.P., Braida L.D., Durlach N.I. Study of multi-channel amplitude compression and linear amplification for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1981; 69: 524–534
- MacLeod A., Summerfield Q. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 29–43
- Marriage J.E., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 198–210
- Moore B.C.J. 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 2000; 34: 165–177
- Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I., Glasberg B.R. Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multi-channel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 1998; 32: 177–195
- Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Stone M.A. 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 1999; 33: 241–258
- Moore B.C.J., Johnson J.S., Clark T.M., Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 349–370
- Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L., Fidell S. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1976
- Smeds K. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?. Ear Hear 2004; 25: 159–172
- Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J. Tolerable hearing-aid delays. III. Effects on speech production and perception of across-frequency variation in delay. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 175–183
- Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I., Glasberg B.R. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106: 3603–3619
- Studebaker G. A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28: 455–462