Literature DB >> 2307302

Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired.

D Byrne1, A Parkinson, P Newall.   

Abstract

The optimal frequency response slope, from the low frequencies (250 or 500 Hz) to 2000 Hz, was estimated for each of 46 severely or profoundly hearing-impaired adults. The estimates were derived from paired comparison judgments of speech filtered to simulate different frequency response conditions, from home trials and ratings of different tone settings of high-powered, behind-the-ear hearing aids, and for 28 subjects, from speech recognition testing. The estimated optimal response, expressed as the slope from 250 to 2000 Hz and as the slope from 500 to 2000 Hz, was compared with the response prescribed by the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) procedure and its relationship to audiometric variables was analyzed. Insertion gain was measured for the preferred volume setting with the best frequency response. Preferred gain was typically about 10 dB higher than the NAL prescribed gain. Considering these results in relation to other data, it appears that the "half-gain" rule ceases to apply when HTL exceeds about 70 dB. The estimated optimal frequency response agreed with the NAL response for some subjects but relatively more low frequencies were required for between a third and half of the subjects, depending upon how frequency response is expressed. Generally, more low frequencies were required if HTL at 2000 Hz exceeded 95 dB, whereas the NAL response was usually appropriate for other cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2307302     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199002000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  37 in total

1.  Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.

Authors:  Larry E Humes
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

2.  Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes.

Authors:  Bruce J Gantz; Camille Dunn; Jacob Oleson; Marlan Hansen; Aaron Parkinson; Christopher Turner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Amyn M Amlani; Erin C Schafer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-12

5.  Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2002-12

6.  Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fitting.

Authors:  Amyn M Amlani; Jerry L Punch; Teresa Y C Ching
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2002-09

7.  Microcomputer applications for hearing aid selection and fitting.

Authors:  R de Jonge
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1996-09

8.  Auditory System Development and Dysfunction: What Do We Really Know about Childhood Hearing Loss?

Authors:  A E Carney
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1999-06

9.  Effects of Expanding Envelope Fluctuations on Consonant Perception in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Alan Wiinberg; Johannes Zaar; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.