Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments.

This study was designed to determine if an adaptive strategy could be used to select frequency/gain characteristics that would be considered appropriate across a variety of listening environments. In Experiment I, the test-retest reliability of the paired comparison procedure used in Experiment II was assessed in quiet for nine subjects and in speech noise for six subjects. For both conditions, results revealed mean standard deviations of < 3 dB from 200 through 4000 Hz. In Experiment II, four subjects selected frequency/gain characteristics for five different listening environments (quiet, speech noise, quiet conference room, reverberant lecture hall, and reverberant lecture hall in noise). In general, subjects did not tend to select different frequency/gain characteristics across the five simulated environments used in this study. When differences in frequency responses were observed, they tended to be alterations in overall gain rather than changes in relative frequency response. Findings support additional evaluation in more diverse listening environments, possibly with systems that incorporate nonlinear signal processing.

[1]  E. Harford,et al.  The use of high-pass amplification for broad-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. , 1978, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[2]  F K Kuk,et al.  Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  F K Kuk,et al.  The reliability of a modified simplex procedure in hearing aid frequency-response selection. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  M Eriksson-Mangold,et al.  Preferred hearing aid gain and bass-cut in relation to prescriptive fitting. , 1984, Scandinavian audiology.

[5]  D A Fabry,et al.  Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  S Mangold,et al.  Multi-programmable hearing aid. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[7]  S Mangold,et al.  Programmable hearing aid with multichannel compression. , 1979, Scandinavian audiology.

[8]  F. Kuk Evaluation of the efficacy of a multimemory hearing aid. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  F K Kuk,et al.  Preferred insertion gain of hearing aids in listening and reading-aloud situations. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  S Gatehouse,et al.  The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[12]  R M Cox,et al.  Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[13]  H Levitt,et al.  Adaptive testing in audiology. , 1978, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[14]  H Levitt,et al.  A digital master hearing aid. , 1986, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  H Levitt,et al.  Experiments with a programmable master hearing aid. , 1987, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[16]  J R Franks,et al.  Judgments of Hearing Aid Processed Music , 1982, Ear and hearing.