AJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Audiology Vol.13 39-53 June 2004. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2004/007)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Humes, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Humes, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, D. L.

A Comparison of Single-Channel Linear Amplification and Two-Channel Wide-Dynamic-Range-Compression Amplification by Means of an Independent-Group Design

Larry E. Humes 1, Lauren E. Humes 1, and Dana L. Wilson 1

1 Indiana University, Bloomington

humes{at}indiana.edu

The present study used an independent-group design to compare the benefits provided by binaural, single-channel, linear, full-shell in-the-ear hearing aids and binaural, 2-channel, wide-dynamic-range-compression in-the-canal hearing aids in groups of older hearing aid wearers. Hearing aid outcome measures were obtained at both 1-month (n = 53) and 6-month (n = 34) postfit intervals with each device. Outcome measures included multiple measures of speech-recognition performance and self-report measures of hearing aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage. Aided sound-quality measurements were also obtained. Although both devices provided significant benefits to the wearers, there were no significant differences in the benefits provided by either device at the 1-month or 6-month postfit intervals.

Key Words: hearing aids, compression, elderly

Submitted on September 12, 2003
Accepted on December 16, 2003




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
L.-F. Shi and K. A. Doherty
Subjective and Objective Effects of Fast and Slow Compression on the Perception of Reverberant Speech in Listeners With Hearing Loss
J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2008; 51(5): 1328 - 1340.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
K. Chung, M. C. Killion, and L. A. Christensen
Ranking Hearing Aid Input-Output Functions for Understanding Low-, Conversational-, and High-Level Speech in Multitalker Babble
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2007; 50(2): 304 - 322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.