4.3 Article

A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: Predicted speech intelligibility and loudness

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 S29-S38

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2013.765041

关键词

Hearing-aid prescription; children; speech intelligibility; SII; loudness; DSL v4.1; DSL m[i/o]; NAL-NL1; NAL-NL2

资金

  1. National Institute On Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01DC008080]
  2. HEARing CRC
  3. Cooperative Research Centres Program - an initiative of the Australian Government
  4. U.S.A. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the impact of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness for children. Design: A between-group comparison of speech intelligibility index (SII) and loudness, based on hearing aids fitted according to NAL-NL1, DSL v4.1, or DSL m[i/o] prescriptions. A within-group comparison of gains prescribed by DSL m[i/o] and NAL-NL2 for children in terms of SII and loudness. Study sample: Participants were 200 children, who were randomly assigned to first hearing-aid fitting with either NAL-NL1, DSL v4.1, or DSL m[i/o]. Audiometric data and hearing-aid data at 3 years of age were used. Results: On average, SII calculated on the basis of hearing-aid gains were higher for DSL than for NAL-NL1 at low input level, equivalent at medium input level, and higher for NAL-NL1 than DSL at high input level. Greater loudness was associated with DSL than with NAL-NL1, across a range of input levels. Comparing NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] target gains revealed higher SII for the latter at low input level. SII was higher for NAL-NL2 than for DSL m[i/o] at medium-and high-input levels despite greater loudness for gains prescribed by DSL m[i/o] than by NAL-NL2. Conclusion: The choice of prescription has minimal effects on speech intelligibility predictions but marked effects on loudness predictions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据