Literature DB >> 16579490

Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--1. Patterns of benefit.

Stuart Gatehouse1, Graham Naylor, Claus Elberling.   

Abstract

We evaluated the benefits of fast-acting WDRC, slow-acting AVC, and linear reference fittings for speech intelligibility and reported disability, in a within-subject within-device masked crossover design on 50 listeners with SNHL. Five hearing aid fittings were implemented having two compression channels and seven frequency bands. Each listener sequentially experienced each fitting for a 10-week period. Outcome measures included speech intelligibility under diverse conditions and self-reported disability. At a group level, each nonlinear fitting was superior to the linear references for benefits in listening comfort, listener satisfaction, reported intelligibility and speech intelligibility. Slow-acting AVC outperformed the fast-acting WDRC fittings for listening comfort, while for reported and measured speech intelligibility the converse was true. For listener satisfaction there were no group differences between the nonlinear fittings. Analysis in terms of fittings for individual listeners revealed subsets with definite divergences from the group data and hence a need for candidature criteria. There are systematic differences between the benefits of nonlinear and linear fittings, and also within nonlinear fittings with fast versus slow time constants. The patterns of benefit and individual optima depend on the domain of outcome being assessed.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16579490     DOI: 10.1080/14992020500429518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  41 in total

1.  Acoustical correlates of performance on a dynamic range compression discrimination task.

Authors:  Andrew T Sabin; Frederick J Gallun; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  The choice of compression speed in hearing AIDS: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

3.  Stuart Gatehouse: the international perspective.

Authors:  Dianne J Van Tasell; Harry Levitt
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

4.  Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Authors:  Jayne B Ahlstrom; Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Exploring the Relationship Between Working Memory, Compressor Speed, and Background Noise Characteristics.

Authors:  Barbara Ohlenforst; Pamela E Souza; Ewen N MacDonald
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion.

Authors:  Evelyn Davies-Venn; Pamela Souza
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 7.  Auditory reality and self-assessment of hearing.

Authors:  William Noble
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

8.  Stuart Gatehouse: a brief life.

Authors:  Michael A Akeroyd
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

Review 9.  Central presbycusis: a review and evaluation of the evidence.

Authors:  Larry E Humes; Judy R Dubno; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Jennifer J Lister; Anthony T Cacace; Karen J Cruickshanks; George A Gates; Richard H Wilson; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Danielle Glista; Susan Scollie; Marlene Bagatto; Richard Seewald; Vijay Parsa; Andrew Johnson
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.