The effect of a hearing aid noise reduction algorithm on the acquisition of novel speech contrasts

References

• Alcantara J., Moore B., Künnel V., Launer S. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial hearing aid. Int J Audiol 2003; 42: 34–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson J.L., Morgan J.L., White K.S. A statistical basis for speech sound discrimination. Lang Speech 2003; 46: 155–182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benvenuto N., Cherubini G. The Wiener filter and linear predictions. Algorithms for Communications Systems and Their Applications. John Wiley, London 2002; 89–172
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2005. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, (Version 4.3.02) [Computer program]. Retrieved March, 2005, from, http://www.praat.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd, A. 1997. Auditory development of the hearing child. Scand Audiol, Suppl, 46, 9–16.
   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
• Boymans M., Dreschler W.A. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality. Audiology 2000; 38: 99–108
   Google Scholar
• Bray, V.H. & Nilsson, M. 2001. Additive SNR benefits of signal processing. Audiology Online, from, , http://www.audiologyonline.com.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Thieme, Stuttgart 2001
   Google Scholar
• Elliott L.L. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66: 651–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabry D.A. Programmable and automatic noise reduction in existing hearing aids. Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II, G.A. Studebaker, F.H. Bess, L.B. Beck. York Press, Parkton, MD 1991; 65–78
   Google Scholar
• Fabry D.A., Van Tasell D.J. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 676–89
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1258–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graupe D., Grosspitch J., Taylor R. A self-adaptive noise filtering system. Hear Instr 1986; 37: 29–34
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. The K-Amp hearing aid: An attempt to present high fidelity for persons with impaired hearing. Amer J Audiol 1993; 2: 52–74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klumpp R.G., Webster J.C. Physical measurements of equally speech-interfering navy noises. J Acoust Soc Am 1963; 35: 1328–38
   Google Scholar
• Kuk F., Ludvigsen C., Paludan-Müller C. Improving hearing aid performance in noise: Challenges and strategies. Hear J 2002; 55: 34–43
   Google Scholar
• Logan, J.S., Lively, S.E. & Pisoni, D.B. 1991. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report. J Acoust Soc Am, 89, 874–86.
   Google Scholar
• MacMillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide. University Press, Cambridge 1991
   Google Scholar
• Maye J., Werker J.F., Gerken L. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 2002; 82: B101–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Huss M., Vickers D.A., Glasberg B.R., Alcántara J.I. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 2000; 34: 205–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozza R., Rossman R., Bond L. Infant-adult differences in unmasked thresholds for the discrimination of consonant-vowel syllable pairs. Audiology 1991a; 30: 102–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nozza R., Miller S., Rossman R., Bond L. Reliability and validity of infant speech-sound discrimination-in-noise thresholds. J Speech Hear Res 1991b; 34: 643–50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ono H., Kanzaki J., Mizoi K. Clinical results of hearing aids with noise-level-controlled selective amplification. Audiology 1983; 22: 494–515
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisoni D.B., Aslin R.N., Perey A.J., Hennessy B.L. Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. J Exp Psychol: Human Percept Perform 1982; 8: 297–314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack I., Norman D.A. A nonparametric analysis of recognition experiments. Psychon Sci 1964; 1: 125–26
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Hornsby B.W.Y. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing ‘digital noise reduction’. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16: 270–77
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sandlin R. Introducing a completely digital hearing instrument. Hear J 1996; 49: 45–9
   Google Scholar
• Seewald R., Moodie S., Scollie S., Bagatto M. The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues. Trends Amplif 2005; 9: 145–57
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snodgrass J.G., Corwin J. Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. J Ex Psychol Gen 1988; 117: 34–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanislaw H., Todorov N. Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1999; 31: 137–49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M., Lewis D.E., Moeller M.P. The importance of high-frequency audibility in the speech and language development of children with hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 556–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyler R.S., Kuk F.K. The effects of ‘noise suppression’ hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise. Ear Hear 1989; 10: 243–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijkhuizen J.N., Festen J.M., Plomp R. The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 90: 885–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werker J.F., Gilbert J.H.V., Humphrey K., Tees R.C. Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Dev 1981; 52: 349–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werker J.F., Logan J.S. Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 1985; 37: 35–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werker J., Tees R. Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. J Acous Soc Am 1984; 75: 1866–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werker J.F., Tees R.C. Speech perception as a window for understanding plasticity and commitment in language systems of the brain. Develop Psychobiol 2005; 46: 233–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar