Sounds perceived as annoying by hearing-aid users in their daily soundscape

References

• Alcantara J.I., Moore B.C.J., Kühnel V. & Launer S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augoyard J-F., Karlsson H. & Winkler J. 1999. Report and resolution of the Soundscape Research Study Group. In: H. Karlsson (ed.), From Awareness to Action. Conf. Proceedings “Stockholm, Hey Listen!”. Royal Swedish Academy of Music/World Forum for Acoustic Ecology, Stockholm, Sweden, 9–13 June, 1998, 130–135.
   Google Scholar
• Botteldooren D., De Coensel B. & De Muer T. 2006. The temporal structure of urban soundscapes. J Sound Vibr, 292, 105–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buus S. & Florentine M. 2002. Growth of loudness in listeners with cochlear hearing losses: Recruitment reconsidered. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 3, 120–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing-aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16, 176–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. & Gray G.A. 2007. Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: Contributions to self-report hearing-aid outcomes. Ear Hear, 28, 141–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiGiovanni J., Davlin E. & Nagaraj N. 2011. Effects of transient noise reduction algorithms on speech intelligibility and ratings of hearing-aid users. Am J Audiol, 20, 140–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H., James A. & Ginis J. 1997. Client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 8, 27–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. Stuttgart: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W.A., Keidser G., Convery E. & Dillon H. 2008. Client- based adjustments of hearing-aid gain: The effect of different control configurations. Ear Hear, 29, 214–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. & Akeroyd M. 2006. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol, 45, Suppl. 1, S120–S124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, Suppl. 1, S77–S85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaver W.W. 1993. What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5, 1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graneheim U.H. & Lundman B. 2004. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures, and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today, 24, 105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guski R., Felscher-Suhr U. & Schuemer R. 1999. The concept of noise annoyance: How international experts see it. J Sound Vibr, 223, 513–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallberg L., Hallberg U. & Kramer S. 2008. Self-reported hearing difficulties, communication strategies and psychological general well-being (quality of life) in patients with acquired hearing impairment. Disabil Rehab, 30, 203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedfors P. 2003. Site soundscapes. Landscape architecture in the light of sound. [Diss]. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Hernandez A., Chalupper J. & Powers T. 2006. An assessment of everyday noises and their annoyance. Hear Rev, 13, 16–20.
   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, 574–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson J.A., Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 2010. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear, 31, 47–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawai K. & Yano T. 2002. Relation between the overall impression of the sound environment and types and loudness of environmental sounds. J Sound Vibr, 250, 41–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Convery E., Kiessling J. & Bentler R. 2009. Is the hearing instrument to blame when things get really noisy?Hear Rev, 16, 12–19.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G., O’Brien A., Latzel M. & Convery E. 2007. Evaluation of a noise-reduction algorithm that targets non-speech transient sounds. Hear J, 60, 29–39.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. & Fikret-Pasa S. 1993. The three types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility considerations. Hear J, 46, 31–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood D.H. 2001. Most dispensers in Journals survey report greater patient satisfaction with digitals. Hear J, 54, 21–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin. S. 2000. MarkeTrak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer”: The consumer”s perspective. Hear J, 53, 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. & Rogin M. 2000. Quantifying the obvious: The impact of hearing instruments on quality of life. Hear Rev, 7, 6–35.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2005. Marke Trak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J, 58, 30–43.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2010. Marke Trak VIII: Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J, 63, 19–31.
   Google Scholar
• Linssen A.M., Joore M.A., Minten R., van Leeuwen Y. & Anteunis L. 2013. Qualitative interviews on the beliefs and feelings of adults towards their ownership, but non-use of hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 52, 670–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maris E., Stallen P.J., Vermunt R. et al. 2007. Noise within the social context: Annoyance reduction through fair procedures. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 2000–2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2002. Psychoacoustics of normal and impaired hearing. Br Med Bull, 63, 121–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble W. 1983. Hearing, hearing impairment, and the audible world: A theoretical essay. Audiology, 22, 325–338.
   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, 172–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer C.V., Bentler R. & Mueller H.G. 2006Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends in Ampl, 10, 2, 95–104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raimbault M., Lavandier C. & Bérengier M. 2003. Ambient sound assessment of urban environments: Field studies in two French cities. Appl Acoustics, 64, 1241–1256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raimbault M. & Dubois D. 2005. Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities, 22, 339–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer R.M. 1994. The Soundscape. Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester: Destiny Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schum D.J. & Pogash R.R. 2003. Blinded comparison of three levels of hearing-aid technology. Hear Rev, 10, 1, 40–43, 64–65.
   Google Scholar
• Smeds K. & Leijon A. 2000. Hörapparatutprovning. Bromma: CA Tegnér AB.
   Google Scholar
• Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A. et al. 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
• Turner C.W. & Cummings K.J. 1999. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol, 8, 47–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinstein N.D. 1978. Individual differences in reactions to noise: A longitudinal study in a college dormitory. J Appl Psychol, 63, 458–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Yang W. & Kang J. 2005. Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. App Acoustics, 66, 211–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar