Successful and unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification: Differences and similarities in binaural performance

References

• ANSI (1999). Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. American National Standards Institute, S3.1-1999, New York, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Kidd G. Jr. 2005. The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117(4 Pt 1), 2169–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S., Gatehouse S., Bentler R.A., Byrne D., Cox R.M. . 1996. Report of the Eriksholm workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatization. Ear Hear, 17(3), 87S–98S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S. 2003. Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss: A review. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 22, S17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger S., Brorsson B., Lagerbring C., Leijon A., Rosenhall U. . 2003. Hearing aids for adults: Benefits and costs. Stockholm, The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.
   Google Scholar
• Arsenault M.D., Punch J.L. 1999 Nonsense-syllable recognition in noise using monaural and binaural listening strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 105(3), 1821–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 2003. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci, 4(10), 829–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bocca E., Antonelli A.R. 1976. Masking level difference: Another tool for evaluation of peripheral and cortical defects. Audiology, 15(6), 480–487.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brooks D.N., Bulmer D. 1981. Survey of binaural hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 2(5), 220–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Cotton S. 1988. Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories’ new hearing aid selection procedure. J Speech Hear Res, 31(2), 178–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carhart R., Tillman T.W., Greetis E.S. 1969. Release from multiple maskers: Effects of interaural time disparities. J Acoust Soc Am, 45(2), 411–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter A.S., Noe C.M., Wilson R.H. 2001. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 12(5), 261–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chmiel R., Jerger J., Murphy E., Pirozzolo F., Tooley-Young C. 1997. Unsuccessful use of binaural amplification by an elderly person. J Am Acad Audiol, 8(1), 1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung S.M., Stephens S.D. 1986. Factors influencing binaural hearing aid use. Br J Audiol, 20(2), 129–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clarke J.M., Lufkin R.B., Zaidel E. 1993. Corpus callosum morphometry and dichotic listening performance: Individual differences in functional interhemispheric inhibition? Neuropsychologia, 31(6), 547–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. Sydney: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Birtles G., Lovegrove R. 1999. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid users questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol, 10(2), 67–79.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech-perception for hearing-impaired subjects. 2. J Acoust Soc Am, 78(4), 1261–1270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C., Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology, 40(3), 148–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen J.M., Plomp R. 1986. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 79(2), 465–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galambos R., Makeig S. 1992. Physiological studies of central masking in man. II: Tonepip SSRs and the masking level difference. J Acoust Soc Am, 92(5), 2691–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Akeroyd M. 2006. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol, 45 Suppl., 120–4.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43(2), 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giraud A.L., Garnier S., Micheyl C., Lina G., Chays A. . 1997. Auditory efferents involved in speech-in-noise intelligibility. Neuroreport, 8(7), 1779–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givens G.D., Arnold T., Hume W.G. 1998. Auditory processing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older adults. Percept Mot Skills, 86(3), 795–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol, 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein D.P., Stephens S.D. 1975. Masking level difference: A measure of auditory processing capability. Audiology, 14(4), 354–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11(2), 79–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman B. 1984. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol, 13(1), 57–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman B. 2002. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 41(6), 321–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall J.W., Harvey A.D. 1985. Diotic loudness summation in normal and impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 445–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hawkins D.B., Prosek R.A., Walden B.E., Montgomery A.A. 1987. Binaural loudness summation in the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 30(1), 37–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hickok G., Poeppel D. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92(1–2), 67–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh I.J. 1948. The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J Acoust Soc Am, 20(4), 536–544.
   Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. 2005. Do ‘auditory processing’ tests measure auditory processing in the elderly? Ear Hear, 26(2), 109–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Lee L.W. 1994. Evaluating a speech-reception threshold-model for hearing-impaired listeners: Reply. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(1), 588–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Johansson M., Larsby B., Arlinger S. 1998. Dichotic speech tests. Scand Audiol Suppl, 4935–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hällgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B., Arlinger S. 2005. Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 44(10), 574–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Standards Organization. 2004. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment, Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones (ISO 389-8:2004).
   Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Brown D., Smith S. 1984. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch Otolaryngol, 110(5), 290–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jerger J., Chmiel R., Allen J., Wilson A. 1994. Effects of age and gender on dichotic sentence identification. Ear Hear, 15(4), 274–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Jordan C. 1992. Age-related asymmetry on a cued-listening task. Ear Hear, 13(4), 272–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson M.S., Arlinger S.D. 2002. Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. Int J Audiol, 41(5), 279–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan O., Greisen O., Bentzen O. 1967. Treatment with binaural hearing aids. A follow-up investigation of 1147 cases. Arch Otolaryngol, 85(3), 319–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim S., Frisina R.D., Frisina D.R. 2006. Effects of age on speech understanding in normal hearing listeners: Relationship between the auditory efferent system and speech intelligibility in noise. Speech Commun, 48(7), 855–862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura D. 1961. Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory-perception. Can J Psychol, 15(3), 156–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar U.A., Vanaja C.S. 2004. Functioning of olivocochlear bundle and speech perception in noise. Ear Hear, 25(2), 142–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köbler S., Rosenhall U. 2002. Horizontal localization and speech intelligibility with bilateral and unilateral hearing aid amplification. Int J Audiol, 41(7), 395–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köbler S., Rosenhall U., Hansson H. 2001. Bilateral hearing aids: Effects and consequences from a user perspective. Scand Audiol, 30(4), 223–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levitt H., Rabiner L.R. 1967. Binaural release from masking for speech and gain in intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 42(3), 601–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Licklider J.C.R. 1948. The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 20(2), 150–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblad A.C., Hagerman B. 1999. Hearing tests for selection of sonar operators. Acustica, 85(6), 870–876.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 1, S49–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks L.E. 1978. Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 64(1), 107–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie A.R., Rice C.G. 1990. Binaural hearing aids for high-frequency hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 24(5), 329–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B.C. 1996. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear, 17(2), 133–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. 2003. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mukari S.Z., Keith R.W., Tharpe A.M., Johnson C.D. 2006. Development and standardization of single and double dichotic digit tests in the Malay language. Int J Audiol, 45(6), 344–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman A. 1996. Late-onset auditory deprivation: A review of past research and an assessment of future research needs. Ear Hear, 17(3), 3S–13S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W. 2006. Bilateral hearing aids: A review of self-reports of benefit in comparison with unilateral fitting. Int J Audiol, 45 Suppl. 63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Noble W., Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43(2), 100–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W., Gatehouse S. 2006. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 45(3), 172–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noffsinger D., Martinez C.D., Wilson R.H. 1994. Dichotic listening to speech: Background and preliminary data for digits, sentences, and nonsense syllables. J Am Acad Audiol, 5(4), 248–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olsen W.O., Noffsinger D. 1976. Masking level differences for cochlear and brain stem lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 85(6 Pt. 1), 820–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philibert B., Collet L., Vesson J-F., Veuillet E. Auditory rehabilitation ffects on speech lateralization in hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol, 123, 172–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A., Daneman M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(1), 593–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29(2), 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roup C.M., Wiley T.L., Wilson R.H. 2006. Dichotic word recognition in young and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(4), 230–40; quiz 297–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinn J.B., Baran J.A., Moncrieff D.W., Musiek F.E. 2005. Differential attention effects on dichotic listening. J Am Acad Audiol, 16(4), 205–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smeds K. 2004. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear, 25(2), 159–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A. . 2006. Preferred overall loudness. II: Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol, 45(1), 12–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommers M.S. 1996. The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychol Aging, 11(2), 333–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens S.D., Callaghan D.E., Hogan S., Meredith R., Rayment A. . 1991. Acceptability of binaural hearing aids: A cross-over study. J R Soc Med, 84(5), 267–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G.A. 1985. A ‘rationalized’ arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thai-Van H., Philibert B., Veuillet E., Collet L. 2009. Assessment of auditory plasticity using psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measurements. Audiol Med, 7, 55–66
   Google Scholar
• Walden T.C., Walden B.E. 2005. Unilateral versus bilateral amplification for adults with impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 16(8), 574–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Bogaert T., Klasen T.J., Moonen M., Van Deun L., Wouters J. 2006. Horizontal localization with bilateral hearing aids: Without is better than with. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(1), 515–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerhausen R., Woerner W., Kreuder F., Schweiger E., Hugdahl K. . 2006. The role of the corpus callosum in dichotic listening: A combined morphological and diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuropsychology, 20(3), 272–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whilby S., Florentine M., Wagne E., Marozeau J. 2006. Monaural and binaural loudness of 5- and 200-ms tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(6), 3931–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Zizz C.A., Sperry J.L. 1994. Masking-level difference for spondaic words in 2000-msec bursts of broadband noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 5(4), 236–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wingfield A. 1996. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol, 7(3), 175–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong W.Y., Stapells D.R. 2004. Brain stem and cortical mechanisms underlying the binaural masking level difference in humans: An auditory steady-state response study. Ear Hear, 25(1), 57–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurek P.M., Delhorne L.A. 1987. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am, 82(5), 1548–1559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar