Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three

L Humes1, T Hackett

  • 1Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
|April 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Response to Hochberg.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

RE: Letters to the Editor regarding Humes, L. & Diefendorf, A. (1993). Chaos or order? Some thoughts on the transition to a professional doctorate in audiology. American Journal of Audiology, 2(2), 7-16.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

Hematologic improvement in dogs with parvovirus infection treated with recombinant canine granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics·2010
Same author

Evaluation of the VIDAS Listeria (LIS) immunoassay for the detection of Listeria in foods using demi-Fraser and Fraser enrichment broths, as modification of AOAC Official Method 999.06 (AOAC Official Method 2004.06).

Journal of AOAC International·2005
Same author

Emergency approach to intoxications.

Clinical techniques in small animal practice·2000
Same author

That pioneer spirit: implementing clinical episodes of care in an imperfect world.

Health systems review·1997

Different hearing aid fitting methods yield similar speech recognition results. Despite variations in prescribed gain, behind-the-ear hearing aids adjusted by NAL-revised, COX, and POGO-II methods showed comparable performance in quiet and noisy environments.

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Hearing Aid Technology
  • Speech Perception

Background:

  • Hearing aid selection involves various prescriptive methods.
  • Comparing these methods is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes.
  • Behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids are commonly used.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare speech recognition performance and gain achieved with BTE hearing aids fitted using three distinct prescriptive methods.
  • To evaluate the impact of different prescriptive approaches on audibility and intelligibility.

Main Methods:

  • Three prescriptive methods were evaluated: NAL-revised, Memphis State (COX), and POGO-II.
  • Twelve subjects received BTE hearing aids fitted according to each method.
  • Speech recognition was assessed using the CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test (NST) in quiet and noise.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Prescribed frequency responses varied significantly across the three methods.
  • No significant differences were found in the obtained frequency responses among the methods.
  • Aided speech-recognition performance was comparable regardless of the prescriptive method used.

Conclusions:

  • The choice of prescriptive method (NAL-revised, COX, POGO-II) did not impact speech recognition outcomes for BTE hearing aids.
  • Fine-tuning to match prescribed gain is essential for consistent performance.
  • Further research may explore other audiological parameters beyond speech recognition.