Comparison of Severely and Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Children's Amplification Preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 Prescriptions

Ching, Teresa Y. C.; Newall, Philip; Wigney, David

doi:10.3109/14992029709048010

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to our intuitions, an experimental evaluation of the amplification requirements of a group of severely hearing-impaired children indicated that the children did not find high sensation levels in the frequency regions with severe/profound hearing loss to be very useful for understanding speech. 11 They preferred lower sensation levels in these regions, but higher sensation levels at the low frequencies where hearing was less impaired. This trend is also consistent with the "optimized" frequency responses for a group of profoundly hearing-impaired children based on an extended procedure of speech tests and home trials.…”

Section: Hope I Don't Have To Wait Too Long I Like To Be Guided Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective amplification for hearing-impaired children

Ching

2002

The Hearing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hope I Don't Have To Wait Too Long I Like To Be Guided Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective amplification for hearing-impaired children

Ching

2002

The Hearing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Studies using the DSL Method with the pediatric population have been done with various aims and purposes. Some studies have sought to determine whether DSL-related outcomes differ from those of alternative fittings (Snik and Stollman, 1995; Snik et al , 1995; Ching et al , 1997; Scollie et al 2000) or to compare subversions of DSL such as linear vs nonlinear (Jenstad et al , 1999; Jenstad et al , 2000). Other studies have used DSL as the fitting method within general pediatric hearing and amplification research, such as when evaluating signal processing options or audibility effects in children with hearing loss (Moeller et al , 1996; Bamford et al , 1999; Christensen, 1999; Gravel et al , 1999; Hanin, 1999; Lear et al , 1999; Pittman and Stelmachowicz, 2000; Stelmachowicz et al , 2000; Stelmachowicz et al , 2001; Condie et al , 2002; Stelmachowicz et al , 2002).…”

Section: Work That Leads To the 2005 Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ongoing research will, therefore, likely always strive to determine the best methods for prescribing the signal processing characteristics of hearing instruments to optimize children's hearing (Scollie, 2005). Furthermore, children's preferences for DSL over an alternative fitting procedure may be influenced by their previous listening experience (Ching et al , 1997; Scollie et al , 2000) and, therefore, are difficult to interpret at this time. Until more definitive evaluation is available, it may be fair to say that the DSL Method is widely used in pediatric audiology and is known to significantly improve children's speech recognition scores over unaided performance (Jenstad et al , 1999).…”

Section: Work That Leads To the 2005 Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm

Scollie

Seewald

Cornelisse³

et al. 2005

Trends in Amplification

343

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Desired Sensation Level (DSL) Method was revised to support hearing instrument fitting for infants, young children, and adults who use modern hearing instrument technologies, including multichannel compression, expansion, and multimemory capability. The aims of this revision are to maintain aspects of the previous versions of the DSL Method that have been supported by research, while extending the method to account for adult-child differences in preference and listening requirements. The goals of this version (5.0) include avoiding loudness discomfort, selecting a frequency response that meets audibility requirements, choosing compression characteristics that appropriately match technology to the user's needs, and accommodating the overall prescription to meet individual needs for use in various listening environments. This review summarizes the status of research on the use of the DSL Method with pediatric and adult populations and presents a series of revisions that have been made during the generation of DSL v5.0. This article concludes with case examples that illustrate key differences between the DSL v4.1 and DSL v5.0 prescriptions. et al., 1995).Since that revision, DSL[i/o] has been evaluated in both adult and pediatric populations in a number of studies. In this chapter, we will summarize the current status of DSL evaluation work in children and adults and argue the need for different prescriptive targets for adults and children. We will also present research describing electroacoustic and signal processing issues that have motivated us to make modifications to the input/output structure of the DSL target functions. These modifications will be described, and several case studies will illustrate the magnitude and type of changes to prescriptive targets in DSL v5.0. Outcomes for ChildrenStudies using the DSL Method with the pediatric population have been done with various aims and purposes. Some studies have sought to determine whether DSL-related outcomes differ from those of alternative fittings (Snik and Stollman, 1995;Ching et al., 1997;Scollie et al. 2000) or to compare subversions of DSL such as linear vs nonlinear (Jenstad et al., 1999;Jenstad et al., 2000). Other studies have used DSL as the fitting method within general pediatric hearing and amplification research, such as when evaluating signal processing options or audibility effects in children with hearing loss (Moeller et al., 1996;Bamford et al., 1999;Christensen, 1999;Gravel et al., 1999;Hanin, 1999;Lear et al., 1999;Pittman and Stelmachowicz, 2000;Stelmachowicz et al., 2000;Stelmachowicz et al., 2001;Condie et al., 2002;Stelmachowicz et al., 2002). Other authors incorporate the DSL Method, including the associated clinical procedures described by Bagatto et al., 2005, within recommended clinical guidelines for pediatric amplification (e.g., The Pediatric Working Group 1996; American Academy of Audiology, 2004). Ongoing research will, therefore, likely always strive to determine the best methods for prescribing the signal processing ch...

show abstract

“…Studies, however, dispelled this notion and found the method of paired comparisons valid in the fitting of hearing aids in children as young as 5.5 years of age (Byrne, Parkinson, & Newall, 1991;Ching, Newall, & Wigney, 1997;Eisenberg & Dirks, 1995;Eisenberg & Levitt, 1991).…”

Section: Tournament Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Paired-Comparison Methods to Hearing Aids

Amlani

Schafer

2009

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The method of paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid literature nearly 50 years ago. Over time, studies have found paired comparisons to be sensitive, valid, and reliable in determining either the perceptual difference or relative ranking among hearing aids and electroacoustic characteristics. With the increasing number of adjustable electroacoustic parameters in today's digital hearing aids-and the lack of procedural guidelines necessary to fit many of them-the method of paired comparisons provides the clinician with the ability to compare different devices, electroacoustic characteristics, memory settings, or combinations of these variables under the listener's everyday listening conditions. Furthermore, this procedure provides the clinician with the ability to individualize the prescriptive approach-which is predicated mainly on hearing threshold data and listening in quiet-so that a combination of parameters can be set to optimize the user's listening needs in a given environment. In this article, the authors present an overview of the theoretical principle supporting this procedure, the various paired-comparison strategies and associated approaches, the advantages of this method, and recommended procedures for implementing the method of paired comparisons in the fitting of today's sophisticated hearing aids.

show abstract

Comparison of Severely and Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Children's Amplification Preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 Prescriptions

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Effective amplification for hearing-impaired children

Effective amplification for hearing-impaired children

The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm

Application of Paired-Comparison Methods to Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About