JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.36 808-819 August 1993.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bender, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, C. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bender, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, C. V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Longitudinal Study of Hearing Aid Effectiveness. I

Objective Measures

Ruth A. Bender 1
Diane P. Niebuhr 1
Janet P. Getta 1

Charles V. Anderson 1

1 University of Iowa Iowa City

This report is the first of two detailing a longitudinal follow-up of hearing aid users. Sixty-five subjects were followed for 12 months post-hearing aid fitting. Objective tests included insertion gain, the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test (Kalikow, Stevens & Elliott, 1977; Bilger, Neutzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984) and the Nonsense Syllable Test (NST) (Levitt & Resnick, 1978) presented in quiet and noise backgrounds. Initially each subject's hearing aid was fit to the revised National Acoustic Laboratories prescriptive formula (NAL-R) (Byrne & Dillon, 1986) using insertion gain measures. Use gain, measured at 6 and 12 months post-fitting, indicated that subjects generally used those prescribed values, except for subjects in the steeply sloping configuration subgroup. The NST and SPIN tests were administered at the fitting and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-fitting. No change in performance, or training effect, was found for the group or for factors of experience, degree of hearing loss, configuration of hearing loss, use time, or circuit type. Failure to demonstrate a training effect may be attributed, in part, to the fact that initial speech recognition testing was done with the hearing aid volume set at the prescribed values. None of the circuits used showed performance superiority, except when comparing scores for the NST obtained in a quiet background to those obtained in a background of speech-weighted noise. In that comparison, the users of adaptive filter circuits exhibited less deterioration of performance in a noise background.

KEY WORDS: hearing aids, noise reduction, longitudinal, objective measures

Submitted on July 28, 1992
Accepted on March 5, 1993


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
K. J. Munro
Reorganization of the Adult Auditory System: Perceptual and Physiological Evidence From Monaural Fitting of Hearing Aids
Trends in Amplification, September 1, 2008; 12(3): 254 - 271.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
K. J. Munro
Reorganization of the Adult Auditory System: Perceptual and Physiological Evidence From Monaural Fitting of Hearing Aids
Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2008; 12(2): 85 - 102.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.