Is Normal or Less Than Normal Overall Loudness Preferred by First-Time Hearing Aid Users?

Smeds, Karolina

doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000120364.13671.e2

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Acoustic feedback may preclude the use of higher gain. Gain might be reduced to address individual listener preference (e.g., Smeds, 2004). This study only examined one measure of temporal resolution at a single frequency and masker level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of hearing-aid compression on forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss

Brennan

McCreery

Jesteadt

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss. Previous research has demonstrated that the loss of cochlear compression contributes to deficits in this measure of temporal resolution. Cochlear compression can be mimicked with fast-acting compression where the normal dynamic range is mapped to the impaired dynamic range. To test the hypothesis that fastacting compression will most-closely approximate the normal ability to perceive forward-masked pure-tones, forward-masked thresholds were measured for two groups of adults (normal hearing, hearing loss). Adults with normal hearing were tested without amplification. Adults with hearing loss were tested with three different compression speeds and two different prescriptive procedures using a hearing-aid simulator. The two prescriptive procedures differed in the extent to which the normal dynamic range was mapped onto the impaired dynamic range. When using a faster compression speed with the prescriptive procedure that best restored the lost dynamic range, forwardmasked thresholds for the listeners with hearing loss approximated those observed for the listeners with normal hearing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of hearing-aid compression on forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss

Brennan

McCreery

Jesteadt

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies show positive and acceptable results (Humes, 1999;Hornsby and Ricketts, 2003); others show good speech recognition but higher loudness ratings than would be ideal (Lindley and Palmer, 1997;Alcántara et al, 2004;Smeds, 2004). Higher loudness ratings tend to be more pronounced with higher-level inputs or higher frequencies, or both.…”

Section: Outcomes For Adultsmentioning

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

“…In contrast, measures of loudness do not replicate this finding (Alcá ntara, et al, 2004;Smeds, 2004;Wesselkamp, et al, 2001). Smeds (2004) compared listeners' preferred gain settings out of two alternatives to prescriptive targets and found that DSL [i/o] in particular would be perceived as too loud for this group of first-time hearing aid users.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 57%

“…Smeds and colleagues (Smeds, 2004;Smeds, et al, 2006a,b) found that new hearing instrument users preferred less gain than prescribed by common prescriptive methods, including DSL[i/o]. Subsequent laboratory and real world comparisons of new and experienced hearing instrument users showed the same pattern of preferences for lower than prescribed gain, with no differences between groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Studies with a focus on speech recognition have shown acceptable and/or favorable outcomes with DSL[i/o] Hornsby & Ricketts, 2003;Mackersie, et al, 2004;Wesselkamp, et al, 2001). In contrast, measures of loudness do not replicate this finding (Alcá ntara, et al, 2004;Smeds, 2004;Wesselkamp, et al, 2001). Smeds (2004) compared listeners' preferred gain settings out of two alternatives to prescriptive targets and found that DSL [i/o] in particular would be perceived as too loud for this group of first-time hearing aid users.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A range of aided ear canal frequency responses was determined within which adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss performed optimally on both objective and subjective outcomes. Clinical implications of this finding include the following: prescriptive methods providing different targets may all result in optimal fittings; and a range of targets may be more appropriate than a single target when setting the frequency-gain characteristics of the hearing instrument.

show abstract

Is Normal or Less Than Normal Overall Loudness Preferred by First-Time Hearing Aid Users?

Cited by 38 publications

References 24 publications

The influence of hearing-aid compression on forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss

The influence of hearing-aid compression on forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss

The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm

Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About