Children's speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions

References

• Bench, R.J., Doyle, J. 1979. The Bamford-Kowal-Bench/Australian version (BKB/A) Standard Sentence Lists. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Lincoln Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y. 2000. On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. J Ed and Behav Stat, 25, 60–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R., Keidser, G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dirks, D. 1996. Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on non-speech auditory abilities. Ear Hear 17(3 Suppl), 29S–37S.
   Google Scholar
• Cheesman, M.F., Jamieson, D.G. 1996. Development, evaluation and scoring of a nonsense word test suitable for use with speakers of Canadian English. Canadian Acoustics, 24(1), 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., Wigney, D.. 1997. Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. Scand Audiol, 26(4), 219–222.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Britton, L., Steinberg, M.J. (2010b). Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S16–S25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Seewald, R.C. (2010a). A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL 4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 49, S4–S15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Scollie, S.D., Dillon, H., Seewald, R.C., Britton, L., Steinberg, J., Gilliver, M., Agung King, K. (2010c). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional perfor mance rating. Int J Audiol, 49, S35–S48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, T.Y.C., Hill, M., van Wanrooy, E., Agung, K. 2004. The advantages of wide-dynamic-range compression over linear amplification for children. NAL Annual Report 2003–2004. Chatswood, Australia: National Acoustics Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Convery, E., Keidser, G., Dillon, H. 2005. A review: Does amplification experience have an effect on preferred gain over time? Aus New Zealand J Audiol, 27(1), 18–32.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelisse, L.E., Seewald, R.C., Jamieson, D.G. 1995. The input/ output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(3), 1854–1864.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Gray, GA. 2001. Verifying loudness perception after hearing aid fitting. A J Audiol, 10, 91–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon, H., Byrne, D., Brewer, S., Katsch, R., Ching, T. . 1999. NAL Nonlinear Version 1.39 User's Manual. Chatswood, Australia: National Acoustics Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Humes, L.E. 2003. Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome. Trends Amplif, 7(2), 41–75.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M., Seewald, R.C., Cornelisse, L.E., Shantz, J. 1999. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: Aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear, 20, 117–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M., Pumford, J., Seewald, R.C., Cornelisse, L.E. 2000. Comparison of linear gain and WDRC hearing aid circuits II: Aided loudness measures. Ear Hear, 21(1), 32–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion, M., Fikret-Pasa, S. 1993. The three types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility consideration. Hearing J, 46, 31–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, R.E. 1995. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Matsunaga, M. 2007. Familywise error in multiple comparisons: Disentangling a knot through a critique of O’Keefe's arguments against alpha adjustment. Comm Methods and Measures, 1(4), 243–265.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R. 2004. A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res, 188, 70–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, H.G., Weber, J., Hornsby, B.W.Y. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 83–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munro, K.J., Lutman, M. 2003. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 114(1), 484–495.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson, M., Soli, S.D., Sullivan, J.A. 1994. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95(2), 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philibert, B., Collet, L., Vesson, J.-F., Veuillet, E. 2002. Intensity-related performances are modified by long-term hearing aid use: A functional plasticity? Hear Res, 165(1–2), 142–151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Philibert, B., Collet, L., Vesson, J.-F., Veuillet, E. 2005. The auditory acclimatization effect in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners: Evidence for functional plasticity. Hear Res, 205(1–2), 131–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie, S.D., Ching, T.Y.C., Seewald, R.C., Dillon, H., Britton, L., Steinberg, M.J. (2010). Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. Int J Audiol, 49, S49–S63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie, S.D., Seewald, R.C, Moodie, K.S., Dekok, K. 2000. Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: Comparison to prescriptive targets. J Am Acad Audiol, 11(4), 230–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seewald, R.C, Cornelisse, L.E., Ramji, K.V, Sinclair, S.T., Moodie, K.S. . 1997. A software implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL[i/o]) Method for fitting linear gain and wide-dynamic-range compression hearing instruments, Version 4.1. Hearing Health Care Research Unit, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
   Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar