Loudness Discomfort Level and Reliability as a Function of Instructional Set

References

• American National Standards Institute. Standard criteria for permissible ambient noise during audiometric testing. ANSI, New York 1977
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. Specifications for audiometers. ANSI, New York 1969
   Google Scholar
• Beattie R C, Boyd R L. Relationship between pure-tone and speech loudness discomfort levels among hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord 1986; 51: 120–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie R, Culibrk J. Effects of a competing message on the speech comfortable loudness level for two instructional sets. Ear Hear 1980; 1: 242–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie R, Sheffler M. Test-retest stability and effects of psychophysical methods on the speech loudness discomfort level. Audiology 1981; 20: 143–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie R, Svihovec C, Carmen R, Kunkel H. Loudness discomfort level for speech: comparison of two instructional sets for SSPL selection. Ear Hear 1980; 1: 197–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler R A, Pavlovic C V. Comparisons of discomfort levels obtained with pure tones and multitone complexes. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 86: 126–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger K. The use of uncomfortable loudness level in hearing aid fitting. Maico Audiological Library Series 1976; 15
   Google Scholar
• Berger K, Varavaas D, Vottero D. Test-retest reliability of MCLs, UCLs and ARTs. Hear Instr 1982; 33: 16–9
   Google Scholar
• Berger K, Hagberg E N, Rane R L. Prescription of hearing aids: rationale, procedures and results. 4th ed. Herald, Kent, Ohio 1984
   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
• Cox R M. Using LDLs to establish hearing aid limiting levels. Hear Instr 1981; 32: 16–20
   Google Scholar
• Cox R M. Comfortable loudness level: stimulus effects, longterm reliability and predictability. J Speech Hcar Res 1989; 32: 16–20
   Google Scholar
• Dirks D, Kamm C. Psychometric functions for loudness discomfort and most comfortable loudness levels. J Speech Hear Res 1976; 19: 613–27
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dirks D, Stream R, Wilson R. Speech audiometry: earphone and sound field. J Speech Hear Disord 1972; 37: 162–76
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dirks D, Kamm C, Dubno J, Velde T. Speech recognition performance at loudness discomfort level. Scand Audiol 1981; 10: 239–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drysdale R, Gregory H. Speech reception with dynamic range reduction: 1. Deaf and normal subjects in laboratory conditions. Br J Audiol 1978; 12: 87–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edgerton B, Beattie R, Wides J. Loudness discomfort levels of hearing-impaired listeners using speech material. Ear Hear 1980; 1: 206–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geller D, Margolis R. Magnitude estimation of loudness: I. Application to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 20–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenfield D G, Wiley T L, Block M G. Acoustic-reflex dynamics and the loudness discomfort level. J Speech Hear Disord 1985; 50: 14–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hawkins D. The effect of signal type on the loudness discomfort level. Ear Hear 1980; 45: 3–16
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins D. Overampliftcation: a well-documented case report. J Speech Hear Disord 1982; 47: 382–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humes L, Hackett T. Comparison of frequency response and aided speech recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1990; 1: 101–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalikow D, Stevens K, Elliot L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerrick J, Nagel D, Bennett R. Multiple ratings of sound stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 1969; 45: 1014–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M, Monsen E. CORFIG: coupler response for flat insertion gain. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance, G Studebaker, I. Hochberg. University Park Press, Baltimore 1980
   Google Scholar
• Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49: 467–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt H. Hearing aid response characteristic selection strategies. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance, G Studebaker, I. Hochberg. University Park Press, Baltimore 1980
   Google Scholar
• McLeod H, Greenberg H. Relationship between loudness discomfort level and acoustic reflex threshold for normal and sensorineural hearing impaired individuals. J Speech Hear Res 1979; 22: 873–82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan D, Dirks D. Loudness discomfort level under earphones and in the free field: the effects of calibration methods. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 172–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan D, Wilson R, Dirks D. Loudness discomfort level: selected methods and stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 577–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlovic C V, Studebaker G A, Sherbecoe R L. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80: 50–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rintelmann W F, Bess F H. High-level amplifications and potential hearing loss. Hearing impairment in children, F H. Bess. York Press, Parkton 1988; 278–309
   Google Scholar
• Ross M, Seewald R C. Hearing aid selection and evaluation with young children. Hearing impairment in children, F H. Bess. York Press, Parkton 1988; 190–213
   Google Scholar
• Scharf B. Audition. Experimental sensory psychology, B. Scharf. Scott, Foresman and Co, Glenview 1975; 112–49
   Google Scholar
• Shaw E. Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 152–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Silverman S. Tolerance for pure tones and speech in normal and defective hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1946; 56: 658–77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner M W. Hearing aid response characteristic selection strategies. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance, G Studebaker, I. Hochberg. University Park Press, Baltimore 1980
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M W. Hearing aid evaluation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1988
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M W, Pascoe D P, Miller J D, Popelka G R. Measurements to determine the optimal placement of speech energy within the listener's auditory area. The Vanderbilt hearing aid report, G A Studebaker, F. Bess. Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, Upper Darby 1982; 161–9
   Google Scholar
• Ventry I, Woods R, Rubin M, Hill W. Most comfortable loudness for pure tones, noise, and speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49: 1805–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetherill G. Sequential estimation of quantal response curves. Roy Statist Soc 1963; B25: 1–48
   Google Scholar
• Wetherill G, Levitt H. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Statist Psychol 1965; 18: 1–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar