The use of high-pass amplification for broad-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.

Recent research suggests that persons with sensorineural hearing impairment should derive extra benefit from amplification that eliminates or greatly reduces low frequencies, i.e. frequencies below 1 500 or 2 000 Hz. Such amplification seems to reduce the detrimental effects of the upward spread of masking on speech intelligibility, especially when listening in noisy environments. Also, current research indicates that extended high-frequency amplification, between 4 000 and 6 500 Hz is especially beneficial for optimal speech intelligibility. 9 patients with a relatively flat, moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were evaluated in the clinic and for daily listening situations while wearing conventional broad-frequency hearing aids with an upper range of about 4 500 Hz. They were also evaluated under these same circumstances with a hearing aid that reduces low frequencies and extends the high frequencies to nearly 6 500 Hz. Results indicate that these patients performed better and perferred the hearing aid that extends the high and reduces the low frequencies, particularly in noisy places. As a group, they did not prefer this type of amplification in quite listening situations.

[1]  E. Shaw,et al.  Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field. , 1966, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  J M Pickett,et al.  Sensorineural hearing loss and upward spread of masking. , 1970, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  D. Pascoe,et al.  Frequency Responses of Hearing Aids and Their Effects on the Speech Perception of Hearing-Impaired Subjects , 1975 .

[4]  O. Berland,et al.  Sound Pressure Generated in the Human External Ear by A Free Sound Field: British Society of Audiology , 1969 .

[5]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Investigation of the acoustics of earmold vents. , 1970, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Hallowell Davis,et al.  Book Reviews: Hearing Aids: An Experimental Study of Design Objectives , 1948 .

[7]  G. A. Miller The masking of speech. , 1947, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  E. Harford,et al.  A REHABILITATIVE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF UNILATERAL HEARING IMPAIRMENT: THE CONTRALATERAL ROUTING OF SIGNALS CROS. , 1965, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  M J Osberger,et al.  Discrimination of formant frequency transitions in synthetic vowels. , 1973, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  J. C. Steinberg,et al.  Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech Sounds , 1945 .

[11]  D. Brooks,et al.  Gain Requirements of Hearing aid Users , 1973 .

[12]  N P Erber Body-baffle and real-ear effects in the selection of hearing aids for deaf children. , 1973, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[13]  D. Byrne Some Implications of Body Baffle for Hearing Aid Selection , 1972 .

[14]  N. P. Erber Variables that influence sound pressures generated in the ear canal by an audiometric earphone. , 1968, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  W Olsen,et al.  Head diffraction effects on ear-level hearing aids. , 1975, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[16]  J J Zwislocki,et al.  Sound pressure distribution in the outer ear. , 1973, Acta oto-laryngologica.