Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to?

This paper discusses trends and issues in selecting amplification for new, mainly nonlinear, types of hearing aids. Some-concerns are that nonvalidated prescription formulae may proliferate; that, through concentration on loudness normalization, alternative rationales are not being evaluated; and that most new fitting procedures for nonlinear hearing aids ignore the findings of research with linear amplification. A possible philosophical concern is that the hearing aid fitter may lose control of the fitting process. The achieving of any particular loudness relationship, among different frequency components of amplified speech, may be unimportant in itself but may be critical for achieving other objectives such as maximizing audibility over a wide frequency range when speech is at a comfortable level. Amplification selection should seek to achieve objectives by the simplest means (linear frequency shaping, automatic volume control) and should proceed to more complex, but potentially detrimental, processing (syllabic compression) only to the extent necessary. New prescriptive procedures should build on established procedures because, for typical speech levels, amplification requirements should be similar, regardless of whether linear or nonlinear amplification is used.

[1]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Real-time multiband dynamic compression and noise reduction for binaural hearing aids. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[2]  J L Punch,et al.  Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  F K Kuk A Screening Procedure for Modified Simplex in Frequency‐Gain Response Selection , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[4]  A Parving,et al.  A clinical comparative investigation of a non-linear versus linear hearing aid. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[5]  D. Byrne,et al.  Selecting the Gain of Hearing Aids for Persons with Sensorineural Hearing Impairments , 1976 .

[6]  R C Seewald,et al.  Selecting Amplification Characteristics for Young Hearing‐Impaired Children , 1985, Ear and hearing.

[7]  J M Festen,et al.  Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  Gerald A. Studebaker,et al.  Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance , 1992 .

[9]  D Byrne Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Christine M. Rankovic An Application of the Articulation Index to Hearing Aid Fitting , 1991 .

[11]  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.

[12]  Dianne J. Van Tasell,et al.  Hearing Loss, Speech, and Hearing Aids , 1993 .

[13]  H Levitt,et al.  An evaluation of three adaptive hearing aid selection strategies. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Barry A. Freeman,et al.  Amplification in Education , 1981 .

[15]  C M Rankovic,et al.  An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[17]  R. Hellman,et al.  Loudness relations for individuals and groups in normal and impaired hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  E W Yund,et al.  The Effect of Multichannel Compression on Vowel and Stop‐Consonant Discrimination in Normal‐Hearing and Hearing‐Impaired Subjects , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[19]  J Kiessling,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a programmable three-channel automatic gain control amplification system. , 1991, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[20]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[21]  D Byrne,et al.  Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  M C Killion The K-Amp Hearing Aid: An Attempt to Present High Fidelity for Persons With Impaired Hearing. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

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

[24]  L E Humes,et al.  An evaluation of several rationales for selecting hearing aid gain. , 1986, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[25]  J Jerger,et al.  Efficacy of the cued-listening task in the evaluation of binaural hearing aids. , 1994, Journal of american academy of audiology.

[26]  H Levitt,et al.  Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[28]  B C Moore,et al.  Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. , 1985, British journal of audiology.

[29]  G A Studebaker The effect of equating loudness on audibility-based hearing aid selection procedures. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[30]  G Keidser The Relationship Between Listening Conditions and Alternative Amplification Schemes for Multiple Memory Hearing Aids , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[31]  G A Studebaker,et al.  Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. , 1988, British journal of audiology.

[33]  G Keidser,et al.  Candidates for Multiple Frequency Response Characteristics , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[34]  D Byrne Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[35]  H. Dillon,et al.  Guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[36]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Using Loudness Data for Hearing Aid Selection: The IHAFF Approach , 1995 .

[37]  D A Fabry,et al.  Effects of different frequency response strategies upon recognition and preference for audible speech stimuli. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[38]  Margaret W. Skinner,et al.  Hearing Aid Evaluation , 1988 .

[39]  Gerald A. Studebaker,et al.  The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II , 1991 .

[40]  R C Seewald,et al.  The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  B E Walden,et al.  The reliability and validity of the comfort level method of setting hearing aid gain. , 1977, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[42]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[43]  R Plomp,et al.  The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  B C Moore,et al.  Design and evaluation of a two-channel compression hearing aid. , 1987, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[45]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[46]  B. Moore,et al.  Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  W A Dreschler Fitting multichannel-compression hearing aids. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

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

[49]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Loudness discomfort level measurements and their implications for the design and fitting of hearing aids , 1984 .

[50]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. , 1983, British journal of audiology.

[51]  M. C. Martin,et al.  The Effectiveness of Hearing Aids in A School Population , 1976 .

[52]  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.

[53]  H. Dillon,et al.  Compression in hearing aids: an analysis, a review and some recommendations , 1981 .

[54]  H Dillon Tutorial Compression? Yes, But for Low or High Frequencies, for Low or High Intensities, and with What Response Times? , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[55]  Yund Ew,et al.  The effect of multichannel compression on vowel and stop-consonant discrimination in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1995 .