Effect of variations in hearing-aid frequency response on real-life functional performance of children with severe or profound hearing loss

References

• Allum J.H., Greisiger R., Straubhaar S., Carpenter M.G. Auditory perception and speech identification in children with cochlear implants tested with the EARS protocol. Br J Audiol 2000; 34: 293–303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson K., Smaldino J. Listening inventories for education: A classroom measurement tool. Hear J 1999; 52: 74–76
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger S.D. How to assess outcome of hearing-aid fitting in children. Scand Audiol Suppl 2001; 53: 68–72
   Google Scholar
• Bamford, J., Beresford, D., Mencher, G., DeVoe, S., Owen, V., . 2002. Provision and fitting of new technology hearing aids: Implications from a survey of some ‘good practice services’ in UK and USA. In: R.C. Seewald, et al & J. Gravel. A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification 2001, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Phonak AG, pp. 213–220.
   Google Scholar
• Bess F.H., Chase P.A., Gravel J.S., Seewald R.C., Stelmachowicz P.G., et al. Amplification for infants and children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 1996; 5(1)53–68
   Google Scholar
• Boudreau D. Use of a parent questionnaire in emergent and early literacy assessment of preschool children. Lang Sp Hear Serv Sch 2005; 36(1)33–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80: 494–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D. Key issues in hearing-aid selection and evaluation. J Amer Acad Audiol 1992; 3(2)67–80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne D., Ching T.Y.C. Optimizing amplification for hearing-impaired children: I. Issues and procedures. Aus J Edn Deaf 1997; 3(1)21–28
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Cotton S. Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories’ new hearing-aid selection procedure. J Sp Hear Res 1988; 31: 178–186
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1)37–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne D., Parkinson A., Newall P. Hearing-aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 40–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Parkinson A., Newall P. Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II, G. Studebaker, F. Bess, L. Beck. York Press, Parkton, MD 1991; 295–300
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C. Selecting, verifying, and evaluating hearing aids for children. J Audiol Med 2003; 3(1)191–198
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C. 2006. Hearing-aid prescription for children. 4th Widex Congress of Paediatric Audiology, Ottawa.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high frequency audibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103: 1128–1140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Katsch R., Byrne D. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing-aid fitting. Ear Hear 2001; 22(3)212–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Hill M. The parents’ evaluation of aural/oral performance of children (PEACH) scale: normative data. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18(3)221–237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Hill M., Birtles G., Beecham L. Clinical use of paired comparisons to evaluate hearing-aid fitting of severely/profoundly hearing-impaired children. Aust New Zealand J Audiol 1999; 21(2)51–63
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Newall P., Wigney D. Audio-visual and auditory paired comparison judgments by severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children: Reliability and frequency response preferences. Aust J Audiol 1994; 16: 99–106
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crais E. Expanding the repertoire of tools and techniques for assessing communication skills of infants and toddlers. Am J Speech Lang Path 1995; 4(3)47–59
   Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G.C. Evaluation of an in-situ output probe-microphone method for hearing-aid fitting verification. Ear Hear 1990; 11(1)31–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R., Alexander G.C. The abbreviated profile of hearing-aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16(2)176–186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 1999; 52(4)10–16
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L.S., Levitt H. Paired comparison judgments for hearing-aid selection in children. Ear Hear 1991; 12(6)417–430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabrielsson A., Schenkman B.N., Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31(2)166–177
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Golding M., Pearce W., Seymour J., Cooper A., Ching T.C., et al. The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in infants. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 117–127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, M. 2000. How do we know we've got it right? Observing performance with amplification. In: R. Seewald. A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification: Proceedings of an International Conference. Switzerland: Phonak AG, pp. 119–140.
   Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Hackett T. Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Amer Acad Audiol 1990; 1(2)101–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenstad L.M., Bagatto M.P., Seewald R.C., Scollie S., Cornelisse L.E., et al. Evaluation of the desired sensation level [input/output] algorithm for adults with hearing loss: The acceptable range for amplified conversational speech. Ear Hear 2007; 28(6)793–811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. 2007. Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120, 4, 898–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler A.R., Giolas T.G., Maxon A.B. The hearing performance inventory for children (HPIC): Reliability and validity. Poster presented at American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, Seattle, WA 1990
   Google Scholar
• Kopun J.G., Stelmachowicz P.G. Perceived communication difficulties of children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 1998; 7(1)30–38
   Google Scholar
• Kuk, F.K. Use of paired comparisons in hearing-aid fittings. In. M. Valente. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme. pp. 108–135.
   Google Scholar
• Kuk F.K., Lau C. Effect of hearing-aid experience on preferred insertion gain selection. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 274–281
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuk F.K., Pape N.M.C. Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 168–177
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leijon A., Lindkvist A., Ringdahl A., Israelsson B. Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing-aid frequency responses. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 251–260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moodie K.S., Seewald R.C., Sinclair S.T. Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing-aid performance in young children. Am J Audiol 1994; 3: 23–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Killen T., Munro K.J. Application of the TEN test to hearing-impaired teenagers with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2003; 42(8)465–474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer C.V., Mormer E. Goals and expectations of the hearing-aid fitting. Trends in Amp 1999; 4(2)61–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parkinson A.J., Newall P., Byrne D., Plant G. Relationship of aided speech recognition to hearing thresholds and aided speech-peak sensation levels in severely and profoundly hearing-impaired adults. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 305–321
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robbins A.M., Renshaw J., Berry S. Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Am J Otol 1991; 12(Suppl)144–150
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seewald R., Moodie K., Sinclair S., Scollie S. Predictive validity of a procedure for pediatric hearing instrument fitting. Am J Audiol 1999; 8: 143–152
   PubMedGoogle 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(4)145–157
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G. Hearing-aid outcome measures for children. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 14–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Studebaker, R. 1982. Hearing-aid selection: an overview. In: G. Studebaker & F.H. Bess. The Vanderbilt Hearing-aid Report: State of the Art – Research Needs. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology.
   Google Scholar
• van Buuren R.A., Festen J.M., Plomp R. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38: 211–221
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Borne S., Snik A.F.M., Hoekstra C.C., Vermeulen A.M., van den Broek P., et al. Assessment of basal sound identification skills and communication abilities in profoundly deaf children fitted with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. Clin Otolaryngol 1998; 23: 455–461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidas S., Hassan R., Parnes L.S. Real-life performance considerations of four pediatric multi-channel cochlear implant recipients. J Otolaryngol 1992; 21: 387–393
   PubMedGoogle Scholar