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


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.40 666-685 June 1997.
© 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 Humes, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hedley-Williams, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Humes, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hedley-Williams, A.
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?

A Comparison of the Benefit Provided by Well-Fit Linear Hearing Aids and Instruments With Automatic Reductions of Low-Frequency Gain

Larry E. Humes 1
Laurel A. Christensen 2
Fred H. Bess 3

Andrea Hedley-Williams 3
1 Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences Indiana University Bloomington
2 Department of Communication Disorders LSU Medical Center New Orleans, LA
3 Division of Hearing and Speech Sciences Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Nashville, TN

In this clinical study, 110 patients seen at three different clinical facilities were fit binaurally with linear, in-the-canal (ITC) hearing aids. All patients were new hearing aid users. Each of the hearing aids was equipped with an adjustable control that could be set by one of the audiologists (Audiologist A) at each site to convert it from a linear instrument to an experimental nonlinear one with automatic reduction of low-frequency gain at high input levels (or base increase at low levels, BILL). Both the patient and the audiologist performing the outcome testing at each site (Audiologist B) were blind as to the present setting of the hearing aid. Each participant was enrolled in the study for a total of 12 weeks, with the hearing aid set to either the linear or BILL-processing mode of operation for the first 8 weeks and the opposite setting for a subsequent 4-week period. In summary, this was a prospective, doubleblind, crossover study of 110 new hearing-aid users. Outcome measures focused on hearing-aid benefit and included both objective and subjective measures. Objective measures were derived from scores on the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) and the Connected Speech Test (CST) obtained for all possible combinations of two speech presentation levels (60 and 75 dB SPL), two types of background noise (cafeteria noise and multitalker babble), and two signal-to-noise ratios (+5 and +10 dB). Subjective outcome measures included magnitude estimation of listening effort (MELE), the abbreviated form of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI), and estimations of hearing-aid usage based on daily-use logs kept by the participants. All of these measures were used to evaluate the benefit provided by linear amplification and the benefit resulting from the experimental BILL processing. Participant preferences for the experimental BILL-processing scheme or linear processing were also examined by using a paired-comparison task at the end of the study. Results were analyzed separately for three subgroups of patients (mild, moderate, severe) formed on the basis of their average hearing loss at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. In all three subgroups, significant improvement in performance was observed for linear amplification and for BILL processing when compared to unaided performance. There were no significant differences in aided performance, however, between linear processing and the experimental BILL processing.

KEY WORDS: hearing aids, benefit, linear processing, BILL-processing, speech understanding in noise

Submitted on July 10, 1996
Accepted on January 10, 1997


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
P. Matthews
The SOUNDTEC Direct System
Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2002; 6(2): 61 - 65.
[PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
V. D. Larson, D. W. Williams, W. G. Henderson, L. E. Luethke, L. B. Beck, D. Noffsinger, R. H. Wilson, R. A. Dobie, G. B. Haskell, G. W. Bratt, et al.
Efficacy of 3 Commonly Used Hearing Aid Circuits: A Crossover Trial
JAMA, October 11, 2000; 284(14): 1806 - 1813.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.