References
- Cox R, McDaniel D. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: Application to hearing aid selection. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76: 758–66
- Danaher E, Pickett J. Some masking effects produced by low frequency vowel formants in persons with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1975; 18: 261–71
- Davis H, Stevens S, Nichols R, Jr, Hudgins C., Marquis R., Peterson G., Ross D. Hearing Aids: An Experimental Study of Design Objectives. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1947
- Dempsey J. Effect of automatic signal processing amplification on speech recognition in noise for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1987; 96: 251–3
- Gray T, Speaks C. Ability of hearing-impaired listeners to understand connected discourse. J Am Audiol Soc 1977; 3: 159–66
- Kuk F, Tyler R., Stubbing P., Bertschy M. Noise-Reduction circuitry in an ITE instrument. Hear Instr 1989; 40(7)20–26; 58
- Martin E, Pickett J. Sensorineural hearing loss and upward spread of masking. J Speech Hear Res 1970; 13: 426–37
- Punch J. Quality judgments of hearing aid processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners. J Am Audiol Soc 1978; 3: 179–88
- Punch J, Beck L. Relative effects of low frequency amplification on syllable recognition and speech quality. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 57–62
- Punch J, Montgomery A, Schwartz D, Walden B, Prosek R, Howard M. Multidimensional scaling of quality judgments of speech signals processed by hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 68: 458–66
- Punch J, Parker C. Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. J Speech Hear Res 1981; 24: 366–74
- Siegelman J., Preves D. Field trials of a new adaptive signal processor hearing aid circuit. Hear Instr 1987; 4: 24–9
- Smigra D. Improving speech perception in noise: The frequency domain and the intensity domain. Hear Instr 1987; 38: 18–20
- Stach B, Speerschneider J., Jerger J. Evaluating the efficacy of ASP hearing aids. Hear J 1987; 40: 15–9
- Dempsey-Stein L., Hart D. Listener-assessed intelligibility of a hearing aid self-adaptive noise filter. Ear Hear 1984; 5: 199–204
- Studebaker G. Subjective judgments of hearing aid processed speech signals. Scnsorineural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment, M Collins, T Glattke, L Harker. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City 1986; 291–303
- Studebaker G., Bisset J., Van Ort D, Hoffnung S. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72: 80–92
- Tecca J, Goldstein D. Effect of Iow frequency hearing aid response on four measures of speech perception. Ear Hear 1984; 5: 22–9
- Tyler R, Hall J, Glasberg B, Moore B, Patterson R. Auditory filter asymmetry in the hearing impaired. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76: 1363–8
- Tyler R. Adjusting a hearing aid to amplify speech to the MCL. Hear J 1986; 39: 24–7
- Tyler R, Kuk F. Consonant recognition evaluation of “noise suppression” hearing aids in speech babble and low-frequency noise. Ear Hear 1989; 10: 243–9
- Van Tasell D, Larsen S, Fabry D. Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing impaired subjects. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 15–21
- Wolinsky S. Clinical assessment of a self-adaptive noise filtering system. Hear J 1986; 39: 29–32
- Zerlin S. A new approach to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res 1962; 5: 370–96