A Digital Fikerbank Hearing Aid Improving a Prescriptive Fitting with Subjective Adjustments

References

• Arlinger S. Uncomfortable Loudness Level (UCLL) for pure [ones. Manual of practical audiometry, S Arlinger. Whurr Publishers Ltd, London 1989; vol. 1: 70–2
   Google Scholar
• Bonding P, Elberling C. Loudness summation across frequency under masking and in sensorineural hearing loss. Audiology 1980; 19: 57–74
   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: 257–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelisse L E, Gagné JP, Seewald R C. Ear level recordings of the long-term average speech spectrum. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 47–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comelisse 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: 1854–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtois J, Johansen P A, Larsen B V, Clirislensen P H, Beilin J. Open molds. Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views. 13th Danavox Symposium, J H Jensen. Stougaard Jensen, CopenhagenDenmark 1988; 175–202
   Google Scholar
• Elberling C, Nielsen C. The dynamics of speech and the auditory dynamic range in sensorineural impairment. Recent developments in hearing instrument technology. 15th Danavox Symposium, J Beilin, G R Jensen. Stougaard Jensen, CopenhagenDenmark 1993; 99–133
   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: 166–77
   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
• Gatehouse S. Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 296–306
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13: 57–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins D B, Walden B E, Montgomery A A, Prosek R A. Description and validation of an LDL Procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 1987; 8: 162–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO 389. Acoustics – Standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone air conduction audiometers. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaSwitzerland 1991
   Google Scholar
• Leijon A. Optimization of hearing-aid gain and frequency response for cochlear hearing loss. Doctoral dissertation. Chalmers University of Technology, GothenburgSweden 1989
   Google Scholar
• Libby E R. State-of-the-art of hearing aid selection procedures. Hear Instr 1985; 36(1)30–862
   Google Scholar
• Libby E R. Libby's response to Lyregaard [Letter lo the Edilor]. Hear Instr 1986; 37(11)41–5
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Hellgren J. A digital filter bank hearing aid design, implementation and evaluation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics. Speech and Signal Processing (1CASSP 91), Toronto, Canada 1991; 5: 3661–4
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Arlinger S, Hellgren J. Eight-channel digital filter bank for hearing aid use: preliminary results in monaural diotic and dichotic modes. Scand Audiol 1993; 38: 75–81
   Google Scholar
• Lyregaard P E. On the practical validity of POGO. Hear Instr 1986; 37(5)13–7
   Google Scholar
• Lyregaard P E. POGO and the theory behind. Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views. 13th Danavox Symposium, J H Jensen. Stougaard Jensen., CopenhagenDenmark 1988; 81–96
   Google Scholar
• McCandless G A, Lyregaard P E. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 1983; 34(1)16–21
   Google Scholar
• Pascoc D P. An approach to hearing aid selection. Hear Instr 1978; 29(6)12–636
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz D M, Lyregaard P E, Lundh P. Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss (POGO II). Hear J 1988; 41(2)13–7
   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: a basis for selecting amplification characteristics. The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report. State of the Art-Research Needs, G A Studebaker, F H Bess. Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, Upper Darby, PA 1982; 161–9
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan J A, Levitt H, Hwang J Y, Hennessey A M. An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 22–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar