Subjective outcome of hearing aids – a longitudinal study: Brief communication

References

• Parving A, Sibelle P. Clinical study of hearing instruments: a cross-sectional longitudinal audit based on consumer experiences. Audiology. 2001; 40: 43–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parving A. The hearing aid revolution: fact of fiction?. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003; 123: 245–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D, et al. Efficacy 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits, a cross-over trial. JAMA. 2000; 284: 1806–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SA, Lutman ME. Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids. Int J Audiol. 2004; 43: 144–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Johnson TA, Flamme GA. Impact of digital labelling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2003; 24: 215–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noffsinger D, Haskell GB, Larson VD, Williams DW, Wilson E, Plunkett S, et al. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear. 2002; 23: 291–300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor RS, Paisley S, Davis A. Systemic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids. Br J Audiol. 2001; 35: 271–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki-Torkko E, Brorsson B, Davis A, Mair IWS, Myhre KI, Parving A, et al. Hearing impairment among adults: extent of the problem and scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation. Scand Audiol. 2001; 30(Suppl 54)8–15
   Google Scholar
• ISO 389-3. Acoustics-reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 3: reference equivalent threshold force levels for pure tones and bone vibrators Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 389. Acoustics-standard reference zero for the calibration of pure tone air conduction of audiometers Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 7566. Acoustics-standard reference zero for the calibration of pure tone bone conduction audiometers Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 8253-1. Acoustics-audiometric test methods. Part I: basic pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• McCandless GA, Lyregaard PE. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr. 1983; 34: 16–8
   Google Scholar
• Lyregaard PE. POGO and the theory behind. Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views, J Jensen, J. Hartvig Jensen. 13th Danavox Symposium, Copenhagen 1988; 81–96
   Google 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: 257–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biering-Sørensen M, Riess H, Boisen G, Parving A. A clinical comparative investigation of a non-linear versus linear hearing aid. Scand Audiol. 1995; 24: 125–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parving A, Sørensen MS, Carver K, Christensen B, Sibelle P, Vesterager V. Hearing instruments and health technology: an evaluation. Scand Audiol. 1997; 26: 231–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson P, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Sieck L, Christensen B. A double-blind cross-over study of a non-linear hearing aid. Audiology. 1997; 36: 325–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bille M, Jensen AM, Kjaerbol E, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Nielsen H. Clinical study of a digital versus analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol. 1999; 28: 127–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welinder R, Kjaerbøl E, Christensen B, Lansten R, Sørensen MS, Sibelle P. Klinisk kontrolleret dobbeltblindt overkrydsningsforsøg af et høreapparat med en-eller to- mikrofonsteknik. Internal report. Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen 1999
   Google Scholar
• Parving A. The value of speech audiometry in hearing aid rehabilitation. Scand Audiol. 1991; 20: 159–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox RM, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Dillon H, Bentler R, et al. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear. 2000; 21: 106–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox RM, Alexander CG. The international outcome for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002; 20: 159–64
   Google Scholar
• Valente M, Fabry DA, Potts LG. Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol. 1995; 6: 440–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valente M, Sweetow R, Potts LG, Bingea B. Digital versus analogue signal processing: effect of directional microphone. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 133–50
   Google Scholar
• Preves DA, Sammeth CA, Wynnet MK. Field trial evaluations of a switched. directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 273–84
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricketts T, Dhar S. Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 180–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wouters J, Litière L, van Wieringen A. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids. Audiology. 1999; 38: 91–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pumford JM, Seewald RC, Scollie SD, Jenstad LM. Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 11: 23–35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valente M, Schuchman G, Potts LG, Beck LB. Performance of dual microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 11: 181–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar