Directional hearing aid benefit in listeners with severe hearing loss

References

• Agnew, J & Block, M. 1997. HINT thresholds for dual-microphone BTE. Hear Rev, 4, 26,29.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 1997. The calculation of the speech intelligibility index. ANSI S3.5, New York,. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Binnie C.A., Montgomery A.A., Jackson P.L. Auditory and visual contributions to the perception of consonants. J Sp Hear Res 1974; 17: 619–630
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching T.Y., Dillion H., Byrne D. Speech Recognition of hearing impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103(2)1128–1140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G., Gilmore C. Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 1987; 8: 119s–126s
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G., Gilmore C., Pusakulich K. Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 198–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Gilmore C., Pusakulich K.M. The Connected Speech Test Version 3: Audiovisual Administration. Ear Hear 1989; 10(1)29–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erber N.P. Interaction of audition and vision in the reception of oral speech stimuli. J Sp Hear Res 1969; 12: 423–425
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grant K.W., Walden B.E., Seitz P.F. Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103: 2677–2690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer K.S. Auditory and auditory-visual preception of clear and conversational speech. J Sp Lang Hear Res 1997; 40: 432–443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henry P., Ricketts T.A. The effect of head angle on auditory and visual input for directional and omnidirectional hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2003; 12(1)41–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion, M.C. & Christensen, L.A. 1998. The case of the missing dots: AI and SNR loss. Hear J, 51((5)), 32, 34, 36, 40–41,44, 46–47.
   Google Scholar
• Killion, M.C., Schulien, R., Christensen, L., Fabry, D., Revit, L., , et al. 1998. Real world performance of an ITE directional microphone. Hear J, 51((4)), 24–26, 30, 32–36, 38.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhnel V., Margolf-Hackl S., Kiessling J. Multi-microphone technology for severe-to-profound hearing loss. Scand Audiol Suppl 2001; 52: 65–8
   Google Scholar
• Kuk, F., Keenan, D., & Ludvigsen, C. 2004. Is real-world directional benefit predictable?. Hear Rev, 11((12)), 18–24, 63.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod A., Summerfield Q. Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. Br J Audiol 1987; 21: 131–141
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madison, T.K. & Hawkins, D.B. 1983. The signal-to-noise ratio advantage of directional microphones. Hear Instruments, 34((2)), 18, 49.
   Google Scholar
• Miller G.A., Nicely P.E. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27: 338–352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Johnson R.M. The effects of various front-to-back ratios on the performance of directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Audiol Soc 1979; 5: 30–34
   Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C. Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75: 1253–1258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C., Studebaker G., Scherbecoe R. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80(1)50–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearsons, K.S., Bennett, R.L., & Fidell, S. 1976. Speech levels in various environments. Report to the Office of Recources & Development, Environmental Protection Agency, BBN Report # 3281.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A. Impact of noise source configuration on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear Hear 2000a; 21(3)194–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A. Directivity quantification in hearing aids: Fitting and measurement effects. Ear Hear 2000b; 21(1)45–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Henry P. Evaluation of an adaptive directional-microphone hearing aid. Int J Audiol 2002; 41(2)100–112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Henry P., Gnewikow D. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids. Ear Hear 2003; 24(5)424–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts, T.A., Henry, P., & Hornsby, B.W.Y., In Press. Application of Frequency Importance Functions to Directivity for Prediction of Benefit in Uniform Fields. Ear Hear.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Lindley G., Henry P. Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear Hear 2001; 22(4)348–361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Mueller G. Predication of directional hearing aid benefit for individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(10)561–569
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sherbecoe R.L., Studebaker G.A. Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test. Ear Hear 2003; 24(1)71–88
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker G.A., Pavlovic C.V., Scherbecoe R.L. A frequency importance function for continuous discourse. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81(4)1130–1138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G., Scherbecoe R., McDaniel D., Gray G. Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8: 150–162
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker G., Scherbecoe R., McDaniel D., Gwaltney C. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105(4)2431–2444
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumby W.H., Pollack I. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1954; 26: 212–215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, T. 1997. Clinical evaluation of multi-microphone hearing instruments. Hear Rev, 4, 36, 45–46, 74.
   Google Scholar
• Walden B.E., Busacco D.A., Montgomery A.A. Benefit from visual cues in auditory-visual speech recognition by middle-aged and elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 431–436
   PubMedGoogle Scholar