A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design.

The present study used an independent-group design to compare the benefits provided by binaural, single-channel, linear, full-shell in-the-ear hearing aids and binaural, 2-channel, wide-dynamic-range-compression in-the-canal hearing aids in groups of older hearing aid wearers. Hearing aid outcome measures were obtained at both 1-month (n = 53) and 6-month (n = 34) postfit intervals with each device. Outcome measures included multiple measures of speech-recognition performance and self-report measures of hearing aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage. Aided sound-quality measurements were also obtained. Although both devices provided significant benefits to the wearers, there were no significant differences in the benefits provided by either device at the 1-month or 6-month postfit intervals.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  H Levitt,et al.  Speech reception by the hearing-impaired: methods of testing and the development of new tests. , 1978, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[4]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a New Tool , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[5]  B E Walden,et al.  Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. , 1986, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[7]  B E Walden,et al.  Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[8]  B Hagerman,et al.  The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[10]  R M Cox,et al.  Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  P. Newall,et al.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[12]  V Pluvinage,et al.  Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Yund Ew,et al.  Discrimination of multichannel-compressed speech in noise: long-term learning in hearing-impaired subjects , 1995 .

[14]  E W Yund,et al.  Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  E W Yund,et al.  Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  E W Yund,et al.  Discrimination of Multichannel‐Compressed Speech in Noise: Long‐Term Learning in Hearing‐Impaired Subjects , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[17]  F H Bess,et al.  A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[18]  S. Kochkin.  Subjective Measures of Satisfaction and Benefit: Establishing Norms , 1997 .

[19]  Brian E. Walden.  Toward a Model Clinical-Trials Protocol for Substantiating Hearing Aid User-Benefit Claims , 1997 .

[20]  Craig W Newman,et al.  Benefit From, Satisfaction With, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Different Hearing Aid Technologies. , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[21]  Stuart Gatehouse,et al.  Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and Validation of a Client-centered Outcome Measure for Hearing Aid Services , 1999 .

[22]  F H Bess,et al.  A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[23]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[24]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. , 2000, JAMA.

[25]  R K Surr,et al.  Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[26]  H. Hosford-Dunn,et al.  Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice II: predictive validity of fitting variables. Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Modeling and Predicting Hearing Aid Outcome , 2003, Trends in amplification.

[28]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Judgments of Sound Quality in Elderly Hearing Aid Wearers , 2003, Ear and hearing.