Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(04): 230-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748049
Original Article

Preferred Listening Levels of Children Who Use Hearing Aids: Comparison to Prescriptive Targets

Susan D. Scollie
National Centre for Audiology, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
Richard C. Seewald
National Centre for Audiology, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
K. Shane Moodie
National Centre for Audiology, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Dahlberg Hearing Systems, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
,
Kate Dekok
National Centre for Audiology, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Stratford Audiology Clinic, Stratford, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The preferred listening levels (PLLs) of children with sensorineural hearing loss were elicited using conversation-level speech, heard through the children's own hearing aids. All hearing aids were fitted using the desired sensation level (DSL) method. Comparisons were made between the PLL and targets from the following prescriptive formulae: DSL version 4.1 and two versions of the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) procedure, including NAL revised for severe-profound losses (NAL)-RP and NAL nonlinear NAL/NL1. Results for this sample of children indicated that the PLL was similar to the DSL targets, and that, on average, NAL-RP/NL1 targets recommended less gain than that preferred by the majority of children in this study. The implications of factors such as acclimatization, test levels, and clinical procedures on these results are discussed.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, BLS = binaural loudness summation, BTE = behind the ear, DSL = desired sensation level, LDL = loudness discomfort level, MCL = most comfortable level, NAL = National Acoustics Laboratories, PLL = preferred listening level, POGO = prescription of gain and output, RECD = real-ear-to-coupler difference, SPL = sound pressure level, SSPL = saturation sound pressure level, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Amplification - children - desired sensation level - frequency response - hearing aids - National Acoustic Laboratories NL1 - National Acoustic Laboratories RP - preferred listening level - prescription gain formulas - real-ear-to-coupler difference


Publication History

Article published online:
07 April 2022

© 2000. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • Beauchaine Κ, Eiten L, Henriksen JE. (1996). Selecting Hearing Aids for Infants and Young Children, www.boys-town.org/chlc/infants.htm.
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Byrne D, Dirks D. (1996). Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on nonspeech auditory abilities. Ear Hear 17:29S-37S.
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. (1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 11:40–49.
  • Ching TY, Newall P, Wigney D. (1997). Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. Scand Audiol 26:219–222.
  • Cole WA, Sinclair ST. (1998). The Audioscan RM500 Speechmap/DSL Fitting System. Trends in Amplification 3:125–139.
  • Cornelisse LE, Gagné JP, Seewald RC. (1991). Ear level recordings of the long-term average spectrum of speech. Ear Hear 12:47–54.
  • Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1995). The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854–1864.
  • Cox RM. (1982). Functional correlates of electroacoustic performance data. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report. Parkton, MD: York Press, 78–84.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1991). Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday environments. Ear Hear 12:123–126.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1994). Prediction of hearing aid benefit: the role of preferred listening levels. Ear Hear 15:22–29.
  • Dillon H, Byrne D, Brewer S, Katsch R, Ching T, Keidser G. (1998). NAL Nonlinear Version 1.01 User Manual. Chatswood, Australia: National Acoustics Laboratories.
  • Erber NP, Alencewicz CM. (1976). Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord 41:256–267.
  • Erber NP, Witt LH. (1977). Effects of stimulus intensity on speech perception by deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord 42:271–278.
  • Feigin JA, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG, Gorga MP. (1989). Probe-tube microphone measures of ear-canal sound pressure levels in infants and children. Ear Hear 10:23–29.
  • Gatehouse S. (1993). Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:296–306.
  • Hawkins DB, Prosek RA, Walden BE, Montgomery AA. (1987). Binaural loudness summation in the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 30:37–43.
  • Humes LE, Christensen L, Thomas T, Bess FH, Hedley-Williams A, Bentier R. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by linear and two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. J Speech Hear Res 42:65–79.
  • Jenstad LM, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Shantz J. (1999). Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear 20:117–126.
  • Jenstad LM, Pumford J, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE. (2000). Comparison of linear gain and WDRC hearing aid circuits: aided loudness measures. Ear Hear 21.
  • Kruger B. (1987). An update on the external ear resonance in infants and young children. Ear Hear 8:333–336.
  • Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. (1995). Preferred listening levels for linear and slow acting compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 16:407–416.
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085–1099.
  • The Pediatric Working Group of the Conference on Amplification for Children with Auditory Deficits. (1996). Amplification for infants and children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 5(l):53–68.
  • Schwartz DM, Lyregaard PE, Lund P. (1988). Hearing aid selection for severe-to-profound hearing loss. Hear J 41:401–406.
  • Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Jenstad LM. (1998). Validity and repeatability of level-independent HL to SPL transforms. Ear Hear 19:407–413.
  • Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Ramji KV, Sinclair ST, Moodie KS, Jamieson DG. (1997). DSL 4.1 for Windows. London, ON: Hearing Health Care Research Unit, University of Western Ontario.
  • Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Sinclair ST, Scollie SD. (1999). Predictive validity of a procedure for pediatric hearing aid fitting. Am J Audiol 8:143–152.
  • Seewald RC, Ross M, Spiro MK. (1985). Selecting amplification characteristics for young hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 6:48–53.
  • Seewald RC, Scollie SD (1999). Infants are not average adults: implications for audiometric testing. Hear J 52(10):64, 66, 69–72.
  • Snik AF, Hombergen GC. (1993). Hearing aid fitting of preschool and primary school children. Scand Audiol 22:245–250.
  • Snik AF, Stollman ΜΗ. (1995). Measured and calculated insertion gains in young children. Scand Audiol 29:7–11.
  • Snik AF, van den Borne S, Brokx JP, Hoekstra C. (1995). Hearing-aid fitting in profoundly hearing impaired children. Scand Audiol 24:225–230.
  • Walden BE, Schuchman GI, Sedge RK. (1977). The reliability and validity of the comfort level method of setting hearing aid gain. J Speech Hear Disord 42:455–461.