Comparison of the CAM2A and NAL-NL2 hearing-aid fitting methods for participants with a wide range of hearing losses

References

• Alcántara J.I., Moore B.C.J. & Marriage J.E. 2004. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. Int J Audiol, 43, 3–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI 1997. ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI 2003. ANSI S3.22-2003, Specification of hearing aid characteristics. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bor S., Souza P. & Wright R. 2008. Multichannel compression: Effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 1315–1327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Society of Audiology. 2004. Pure-tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking and determination of uncomfortable loudness levels. Reading, UK: British Society of Audiology.
   Google Scholar
• Bronkhorst A.W. & Plomp R. 1989. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 1374–1383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhar M.D. & Sach R.M. 1975. Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. J Acoust Soc Am, 58, 214–222.
   PubMed 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., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108–2120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croghan N.B., Arehart K.H. & Kates J.M. 2014. Music preferences with hearing aids: Effects of signal properties, compression settings, and listener characteristics. Ear Hear, 35, e170–e184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2012. Hearing Aids, 2nd ed. Turramurra, Australia: Boomerang Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fay J.P., Perkins R., Levy S.C., Nilsson M. & Puria S. 2013. Preliminary evaluation of a light-based contact hearing device for the hearing impaired. Otol Neurotol, 34, 912–921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Füllgrabe C., Baer T., Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2010. Preliminary evaluation of a method for fitting hearing aids with extended bandwidth. Int J Audiol, 49, 741–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson E.E. 2013. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing-aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol, 24, 138–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H., Flax M., Ching T. & Brewer S. 2011. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res, 1, e24, 88–90.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G. & Grant F. 2001. The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices. Ear Hear, 22, 516–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., O’Brien A., Carter L., McLelland M. & Yeend I. 2008. Variation in preferred gain with experience for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 47, 621–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. 1979. Equalization filter for eardrum-pressure recording using a KEMAR manikin. J Audio Eng Soc, 27, 13–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy S.C., Freed D.J., Nilsson M., Moore B.C.J. & Puria S. 2015. Extended high-frequency bandwidth improves speech reception in the presence of spatially separated masking speech. Ear Hear, 36, e214–e224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marriage J.E., Moore B.C.J. & Alcántara J.I. 2004. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol, 43, 198–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2007. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. & Füllgrabe C. 2010. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multi-channel amplitude compression. Ear Hear, 31, 657–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Füllgrabe C. & Stone M.A. 2010a. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 128, 360–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Füllgrabe C. & Stone M.A. 2011. Determination of preferred parameters for multi-channel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing aids and paired comparisons. Ear Hear, 32, 556–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. & Stone M.A. 1999. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol, 33, 241–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. & Stone M.A. 2010b. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol, 49, 216–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Marriage J.E., Alcántara J.I. & Glasberg B.R. 2005. Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 44, 345–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. & Sek A. 2013. Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 hearing-aid fitting methods. Ear Hear, 34, 83–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Stone M.A., Füllgrabe C., Glasberg B.R. & Puria S. 2008. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear, 29, 907–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. & Tan C.T. 2003. Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 408–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Hawkins D.B. & Northern J.L. 1992. Probe Microphone Measurements: Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Diego, USA: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Pearsons K.S., Bennett R.L. & Fidell S. 1976. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. 1988. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulton E.C. 1979. Models for the biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psych Bull, 86, 777–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T.A., Dittberner A.B. & Johnson E.E. 2008. High frequency amplification and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 160–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabin A.T., Gallun F.J. & Souza P.E. 2013. Acoustical correlates of performance on a dynamic range compression discrimination task. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 2136–2147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds K. 2004. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing-aid users? Ear Hear, 25, 159–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 12–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P.E. 2002. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif, 6, 131–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Souza P.E., Jenstad L.M. & Boike K.T. 2006. Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 41–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg J.C. & Gardner M.B. 1937. The dependence of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am, 9, 11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 1992. Syllabic compression: Effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol, 26, 351–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2003. Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1023–1034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2004. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2311–2323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2007. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1654–1664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A. & Moore B.C.J. 2008. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multi-channel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1063–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J., Alcántara J.I. & Glasberg B.R. 1999. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3603–3619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuure J., Prinsen T.T. & Dreschler W.A. 1994. The effect of syllabic compression and frequency shaping on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired people. Ear Hear, 15, 13–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yund E.W. & Buckles K.M. 1995. Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1206–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar