The Application of Binomial Probability Theory to Paired Comparison Judgments

Kuk, Francis; Lau, Chi-Chuen

doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0401.37

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subject compared the NAL-NL1 response with each of the two variations for a number of times, and chose the frequency response that enabled him or her to understand the story better. A significant preference was indicated when a frequency response was preferred 10 or more times out of 12 comparisons (significant at the 0.05 level using a binomial model [see Kuk and Lau, 1995]). For the loudness-balancing task, the subject listened to the recorded story first with his or her cochlear implant alone, then with the hearing aid set to the preferred frequency response.…”

Section: Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results clearly indicate that binaural advantages can be obtained from using a hearing aid with a cochlear implant in opposite ears. It is recommended that bimodal stimulation be standard practice for rehabilitation of adults who wear unilateral cochlear implants. A hearing aid should be fitted to the nonimplanted ear using the NAL-NL1 prescription as a starting point, and the frequency response slope and gain could be fine-tuned to suit individual needs.

show abstract

Section: Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preferred gain-frequency responses for hearing aids have previously been investigated using a variety of paradigms. Comparison or rating methods require listeners to make judgments about their preference for or perception of sounds after amplification with different gain-frequency responses, either as paired comparisons ( Amlani & Schafer, 2009 ; Byrne, 1986 ; Keidser, et al., 2005 ; Keidser, Dillon, & Byrne, 1995 , Kuk, Harper, & Doubek, 1994 ; Kuk & Lau, 1995a , 1995b ; Kuk & Lau, 1996b ; Kuk & Pape, 1992 , 1993; Moore, Füllgrabe, & Stone, 2011 ; Neuman, Levitt, Mills, & Schwander, 1987 ; Preminger, Neuman, Bakke, Walters, & Levitt, 2000 ; Punch & Howard, 1978 ; Punch & Parker, 1981 ; Punch, Rakerd, & Amlani, 2001 ; Smeds, 2004 ; Stelmachowicz, Lewis, & Carney, 1994 ) or individual, unpaired ratings ( Kuk & Lau, 1996a ; van Buuren, Festen, & Plomp, 1995 ). Another approach is to use adjustment methods which entail assessing the output of a hearing aid after it has been adjusted—often using the volume control—to better match the preferred listening level ( Boothroyd & Mackersie, 2017 ; Boymans & Dreschler, 2012 ; Cox & Alexander, 1991 , 1992; Dreschler, Keidser, Convery, & Dillon, 2008 ; Hornsby & Mueller, 2008 ; Horwitz & Turner, 1997; Humes,Wilson, Barlow, & Garner, 2002 ; Keidser, Dillon, & Convery, 2008 ; Marriage, Moore, & Alcántara, 2004; Polonenko et al., 2010 ; Smeds et al., 2006 ; Souza & Kitch, 2001) or by analyzing the output of trainable hearing aids after completion of a training regime ( Keidser & Alamudi, 2013 ; Mueller, Hornsby, & Weber, 2008 ; Zakis, Dillon, & McDermott, 2007 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study used the self-fitting algorithm to allow listeners to self-adjust hearing-aid gain or compression parameters to select gain for speech understanding in a variety of quiet and noise conditions. Thirty listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss adjusted gain parameters in quiet and in several types of noise. Outcomes from self-adjusted gain and audiologist-fit gain indicated consistent within-subject performance but a great deal of between-subject variability. Gain selection did not strongly affect intelligibility within the range of signal-to-noise ratios tested. Implications from the findings are that individual listeners have consistent preferences for gain and may prefer gain configurations that differ greatly from National Acoustic Laboratories-based prescriptions in quiet and in noise.

show abstract

“…The first, and perhaps better of the two proposals, relies on the practicality and face validity of the comparative approach method (Carhart, 1946) for the fitting of hearing aids using paired comparisons of sound quality (Kuk, 1994;Kuk & Lau, 1995;Thurstone, 1927aThurstone, , 1927b. In this proposal, alternative prescriptions would be presented to patients in a paired comparison approach, to determine whether a sound quality preference for one prescription over another is present.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Prescription Theory and Application: Realistic Expectations for Speech Recognition With Hearing Aids

Johnson

2013

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major decision at the time of hearing aid fitting and dispensing is the amount of amplification to provide listeners (both adult and pediatric populations) for the appropriate compensation of sensorineural hearing impairment across a range of frequencies (e.g., 160-10000 Hz) and input levels (e.g., 50-75 dB sound pressure level). This article describes modern prescription theory for hearing aids within the context of a risk versus return trade-off and efficient frontier analyses. The expected return of amplification recommendations (i.e., generic prescriptions such as National Acoustic Laboratories-NonLinear 2, NAL-NL2, and Desired Sensation Level Multiple Input/Output, DSL m[i/o]) for the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and high-frequency audibility were traded against a potential risk (i.e., loudness). The modeled performance of each prescription was compared one with another and with the efficient frontier of normal hearing sensitivity (i.e., a reference point for the most return with the least risk). For the pediatric population, NAL-NL2 was more efficient for SII, while DSL m[i/o] was more efficient for high-frequency audibility. For the adult population, NAL-NL2 was more efficient for SII, while the two prescriptions were similar with regard to high-frequency audibility. In terms of absolute return (i.e., not considering the risk of loudness), however, DSL m[i/o] prescribed more outright high-frequency audibility than NAL-NL2 for either aged population, particularly, as hearing loss increased. Given the principles and demonstrated accuracy of desensitization (reduced utility of audibility with increasing hearing loss) observed at the group level, additional high-frequency audibility beyond that of NAL-NL2 is not expected to make further contributions to speech intelligibility (recognition) for the average listener.

show abstract

The Application of Binomial Probability Theory to Paired Comparison Judgments

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears

Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears

Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility

Modern Prescription Theory and Application: Realistic Expectations for Speech Recognition With Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About