title: Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Preference for speech and music processed with nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) and two controls (restricted bandwidth [RBW] and extended bandwidth [EBW] hearing aid processing) was examined in adults and children with hearing loss.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to determine if stimulus type (music, sentences), age (children, adults), and degree of hearing loss influence listener preference for NFC, RBW, and EBW.
  
  
  METHODS
  Design was a within-participant, quasi-experimental study. Using a round-robin procedure, participants listened to amplified stimuli that were (1) frequency lowered using NFC, (2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the RBW of conventional hearing aid processing, or (3) low-pass filtered at 11 kHz to simulate EBW amplification. The examiner and participants were blinded to the type of processing. Using a two-alternative forced-choice task, participants selected the preferred music or sentence passage.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants included 16 children (ages 8-16 yr) and 16 adults (ages 19-65 yr) with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss.
  
  
  METHODS
  All participants listened to speech and music processed using a hearing aid simulator fit to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm v5.0a.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Children and adults did not differ in their preferences. For speech, participants preferred EBW to both NFC and RBW. Participants also preferred NFC to RBW. Preference was not related to the degree of hearing loss. For music, listeners did not show a preference. However, participants with greater hearing loss preferred NFC to RBW more than participants with less hearing loss. Conversely, participants with greater hearing loss were less likely to prefer EBW to RBW.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both age groups preferred access to high-frequency sounds, as demonstrated by their preference for either the EBW or NFC conditions over the RBW condition. Preference for EBW can be limited for those with greater degrees of hearing loss, but participants with greater hearing loss may be more likely to prefer NFC. Further investigation using participants with more severe hearing loss may be warranted.
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Marc A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Brennan
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Ryan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McCreery
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Judy
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kopun
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Brenda
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hoover
authors.affiliation: Experimental Amplification Research Laboratory, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
authors.forename: Joshua
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Alexander
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Dawna
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lewis
authors.affiliation: Hearing and Amplification Research Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE.
authors.forename: Patricia G
authors.initials: PG
authors.lastname: Stelmachowicz
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods*; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001298:Audiology / Q000295:instrumentation; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D006310:Hearing Aids; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016555:Matched-Pair Analysis; D008875:Middle Aged; D009146:Music; D055815:Young Adult