Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss

References

• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 1998. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am, 103, 1128–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 2001a. Children's amplification needs: Same or different from adults? Scand Audiol, 30, 54–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Dillon H., Katsch R. & Byrne D. 2001b. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing-aid fitting. Ear Hear, 22, 212–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C. & Hill M. 2007. The parents’ evaluation of aural/oral performance of children (PEACH) scale: Normative data. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 220–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 DSL 3.0. Scand Audiol, 26, 221–222.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Newall P. & Wigney D. 1999. Clinical use of paired comparisons to evaluate hearing aid fitting of severely/profoundly hearing impaired children. Aus New Zeal J Audiol, 21, 51–63.
   Google Scholar
• Ching T.Y.C., Scollie S.D., Dillon H. & Seewald R.C. 2010a. A crossover, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 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. et al. 2010b. Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and 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., Britton L. et al. 2010d. Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings. Int J Audiol, 49, S35–S48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies-Venn E., Souza P., Brennan M. & Stecker G.C. 2009. Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear, 30, 494–504.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J, 52, 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Storey L. & Grant F. 1998. Preferred compression threshold with 2:1 wide dynamic range compression in everyday environments. Aust J Audiol, 20, 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Haggard M.P., Foster J.R. & Iredale F.E. 1981. Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol, 10, 45–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickson L., Dodd B. & Byrne D. 1995. Consonant perception with linear and compression amplification. Scand Audiol, 24, 175–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickson L., Clutterbuck S. & Khan A. 2010. Factors associated with hearing aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA. Int J Audiol, 49, 586–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan C.A. & Turner C.W. 1998. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 432–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwitz A.R. & Turner C.W. 1997. The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 18, 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber M. 2005. Health-related quality of life of Austrian children and adolescents with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 69, 1089–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes L.E., Halling D. & Coughlin M. 1996. Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 923–935.
   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. 2000. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits, II: Aided loudness measures. Ear Hear, 21, 32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopun J.G. & Stelmachowicz P.G. 1998. Perceived communication difficulties of children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 7, 30–38.
   Google Scholar
• Kuk F.K., Potts L., Valente M., Lee L. & Picirrillo J. 2003. Evidence of acclimatization in persons with severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 84–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murray N. & Byrne D. 1986. Performance of hearing-impaired and normal hearing listeners with various high-frequency cut-offs in hearing aids. Aust J Audiol, 8, 21–28.
   Google Scholar
• Quar T.K., Ching T.Y.C. & Mukari S.Z. 2012. The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale in the Malay language: Data of normal-hearing children. Int J Audiol, 51, 326–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R.C., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. 2010c. Children's speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol, 49, S26–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollie S.D., Ching T.Y.C., Seewald R.C., Dillon H., Britton L. et al. 2010e. 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., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M. et al. 2005. The desired level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle 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, 230–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snik A.F.M. & Stollman M.H.P. 1995. Measured and calculated insertion gains in young children. Br J Audiol, 29, 7–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snik A.F.M., van den Borne S., Brokx J.P.L. & Hoekstra C. 1995. Hearing-aid fitting in profoundly hearing-impaired children: Comparison of prescriptive rules. Scand Audiol, 24, 225–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ting H.N., Yunus J. & Mohd Nordin M.Z. 2005. Assessing auditory discrimination skill of Malay children using computer-based method. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. Shanghai, China,2498–2501.
   Google Scholar
• Turner C.W. & Cummings K.J. 1999. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 8, 47–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vickers D.A., Moore B.C.J. & Baer T. 2001. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am, 110, 1164–1175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner-Czyz A.D., Loy B., Roland P.S., Tong L. & Tobey E.A. 2009. Parent versus child assessment of quality of life in children using cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 73, 1423–1429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar