Children’s Speech Recognition and Loudness Perception With the Desired Sensation Level v5 Quiet and Noise Prescriptions

Crukley, Jeff; Scollie, Susan

doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0002)

Cited by 21 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparisons are further complicated by the fact that updated versions of each algorithm (DSL v.5 and NAL-NL2) have been developed and are used clinically by pediatric audiologists. Despites these developments, Crukley & Scollie (2012) reported similar speech recognition outcomes for DSL v.5 as were reported for DSL 4.1 in quiet. This trend reflects the fact that changes to pediatric prescriptive formulae are based on evidence and would not be likely to result in significant changes in audibility or speech understanding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Characteristics of Hearing Aid Fittings in Infants and Young Children

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Hearing aids provide the basis for improving audibility and minimizing developmental delays in children with mild to severe hearing loss. Multiple guidelines exist to recommend methods for optimizing amplification in children, but few previous studies have reported hearing aid fitting outcomes for a large group of children. The current study sought to evaluate the proximity of the fitting to prescriptive targets and aided audibility of speech, as well as survey data from pediatric audiologists who provided hearing aids for the children in the current study. Deviations from prescriptive target were predicted to have a negative impact on aided audibility. Additionally, children who were fitted using verification with probe microphone measurements were expected to have smaller deviations from prescriptive targets and improved audibility than cohorts fitted without these measures. Design Hearing aid fitting data from 195 children with mild to severe hearing losses were analyzed as part of a multicenter study evaluating outcomes in children with hearing loss. Proximity of fitting to prescriptive targets was quantified by calculating the average RMS error of the fitting compared to Desired Sensation Level prescriptive targets for 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz. Aided audibility was quantified using the speech intelligibility index (SII). Survey data from the pediatric audiologists who fit amplification for children in the current study were collected to evaluate trends in fitting practices and relate those patterns to proximity of the fitting to prescriptive targets and aided audibility. Results More than half (55%) of the children in the study had at least one ear that deviated from prescriptive targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. Deviation from prescriptive target was not predicted by pure tone average (PTA), assessment method or reliability of assessment. Study location was a significant predictor of proximity to prescriptive target with locations who recruited subjects who were fit at multiple clinical locations (University of Iowa and Boys Town National Research Hospital) having larger deviations from target than the location where the subjects were recruited primarily from a single, large pediatric audiology clinic (University of North Carolina). Fittings based on average real-ear to coupler differences (RECD) resulted in larger deviations from prescriptive targets than fittings based on individually-measured RECD. Approximately 26% of the children in the study had aided audibility less than .65. Aided audibility was significantly predicted by the proximity to prescriptive targets and PTA, but not age in months. Conclusions Children in the study had a wide range of fitting outcomes in terms of proximity to prescriptive targets (RMS error) and aided speech audibility (SII). Even when recommended hearing aid verification strategies were reported, fittings often exceeded the criteria for both proximity to the prescriptive target and aided audibility. The implications for optimizing amplificatio...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Characteristics of Hearing Aid Fittings in Infants and Young Children

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this approach was necessary, in our instrumentation, because we wanted to offer participants the ability to make paired comparison judgements across hearing aids with rapid switching between pairs of stimuli. Also, some studies have shown that combining ANR with directionality and/or alternative hearing aid prescriptions may improve outcomes at least for loudness, although this may be limited when large vents are used (Crukley and Scollie, 2012;Magnusson et al, 2013). Finally, we did not assess the real-world outcomes associated with the use of these ANR processors, the impact of testing at other test levels, or the use of ANR in combination with other hearing aid features.…”

Section: General Discussion and Protocol Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we know that children and infants experience a wide range of auditory environments in their daily lives. Many of these environments include high and varying levels of speech, background noise, and/or reverberation (Crukley et al, 2011), and may be louder than desired for children and infants who wear hearing aids even if loudness is normalized on formal loudness rating tasks (Ching et al, 2010;Scollie et al, 2010a;2010b;Crukley and Scollie, 2012). In addition, some children (and adults) experience significantly higher loudness perception than do others with similar hearing losses and similar amplification.…”

Section: Overview Of Automatic Noise Reduction Technology and Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitting Noise Management Signal Processing Applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Verification Protocols

Scollie¹,

Levy²,

Pourmand³

et al. 2016

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the findings in this current study cannot be generalized to listening in noise. This is because the DSL v5 prescription includes a noise program target with less gain than the quiet program (Scollie et al, 2005;Crukley and Scollie, 2012). For future investigations, it will be necessary to examine the impact of choice of prescriptions on speech intelligibility in noise and loudness for children fit with the noise program of DSL v5, and the updated version of the NAL prescription, NAL-NL2 (Dillon et al, 2011).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%