Literature DB >> 20150188

Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing AIDS.

Amyn M Amlani1, Erin C Schafer.   

Abstract

The method of paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid literature nearly 50 years ago. Over time, studies have found paired comparisons to be sensitive, valid, and reliable in determining either the perceptual difference or relative ranking among hearing aids and electroacoustic characteristics. With the increasing number of adjustable electroacoustic parameters in today's digital hearing aids-and the lack of procedural guidelines necessary to fit many of them-the method of paired comparisons provides the clinician with the ability to compare different devices, electroacoustic characteristics, memory settings, or combinations of these variables under the listener's everyday listening conditions. Furthermore, this procedure provides the clinician with the ability to individualize the prescriptive approach-which is predicated mainly on hearing threshold data and listening in quiet-so that a combination of parameters can be set to optimize the user's listening needs in a given environment. In this article, the authors present an overview of the theoretical principle supporting this procedure, the various paired-comparison strategies and associated approaches, the advantages of this method, and recommended procedures for implementing the method of paired comparisons in the fitting of today's sophisticated hearing aids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20150188      PMCID: PMC4111476          DOI: 10.1177/1084713809352908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  47 in total

1.  Paired-comparison hearing aid preferences: evaluation of an unforced-choice paradigm.

Authors:  J L Punch; B Rakerd; A M Amlani
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Impact on hearing aid targets of measuring thresholds in dB HL versus dB SPL.

Authors:  Gabrielle H Saunders; Donald E Morgan
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  A new approach to hearing-aid selection.

Authors:  S ZERLIN
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1962-12

4.  Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions.

Authors:  T Y Ching; P Newall; D Wigney
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1997

5.  Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions.

Authors:  F K Kuk; N M Pape
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1993-02

6.  A screening procedure for modified simplex in frequency-gain response selection.

Authors:  F K Kuk
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores. A research note.

Authors:  M J Raffin; A R Thornton
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1980-03

8.  Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing AIDS.

Authors:  B C Moore
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2001-03

9.  Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  D Byrne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise.

Authors:  G A Studebaker; J D Bisset; D M Van Ort; S U Hoffnung
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  5 in total

1.  Feasibility of real-time selection of frequency tables in an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Matthew B Fitzgerald; Elad Sagi; Tasnim A Morbiwala; Chin-Tuan Tan; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Trevor T Perry; Melanie Gregan; Dianne VanTasell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

3.  Perceptual Effects of Adjusting Hearing-Aid Gain by Means of a Machine-Learning Approach Based on Individual User Preference.

Authors:  Niels Søgaard Jensen; Ole Hau; Jens Brehm Bagger Nielsen; Thor Bundgaard Nielsen; Søren Vase Legarth
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Perceived Sound Quality Dimensions Influencing Frequency-Gain Shaping Preferences for Hearing Aid-Amplified Speech and Music.

Authors:  Jonathan M Vaisberg; Steve Beaulac; Danielle Glista; Ewan A Macpherson; Susan D Scollie
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

5.  Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech-Shaped Noises.

Authors:  Benjamin Caswell-Midwinter; William M Whitmer
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.