American National Standards Institute. (1969). American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Articulation Index. (ANSI S3.5–1969). New York: ANSI.
2.
American National Standards Institute. (Draft). American National Standard Methods for The Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. (ANSI S3.79-Draft). New York: ANSI.
3.
BentlerRAPavlovicCV. (1989). Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear10: 58–63.
4.
BentlerRAPavlovicCV. (1992). Addendum to “Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research.” Ear Hear13: 284–286.
5.
BergerKWHagbergENRaneRL. (1979). Determining hearing aid gain. Hear Instr30: 26–28,44.
6.
BergerKWHagbergENRaneRL. (1989). Prescription of Hearing Aids: Rationale, Procedures and Results, ed 5. Kent, OH: Herald.
7.
ByrneDDillonH. (1986). The national acoustic laboratories new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear7: 257–265.
8.
ByrneDParkinsonDNewallP. (1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements of the severely/profoundly hearing-impaired. Ear Hear11: 40–49.
9.
CarhartR. (1946). Tests for the selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope56: 780–794.
10.
CornelisseLEGagnéJPSeewaldRC. (1991). Ear level recordings of the long-term average spectrum of speech. Ear Hear12: 47–64.
CoxRMAlexanderGC. (1990). Evaluation of an in-situ output probe-microphone method for hearing aid fitting verification. Ear Hear11: 31–39.
18.
CoxRMAlexanderGC. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear16: 176–183.
19.
CoxRMAlexanderGCGilmoreC. (1991). Objective and self-report measures of hearing aid benefit. In: StudebakerGABessFHBeckL, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 201–213.
20.
CoxRMBissetJD. (1982). Prediction of preferred listening levels for hearing aid gain prescription. Ear Hear3: 66–71.
21.
CoxRMGoffCMMartinSEMcCloudLL. (1994a). The contour test: Normative data. Presented at the American Academy of Audiology Meeting, Richmond, VA, 1994.
22.
CoxRMMooreJN. (1988). Composite speech spectrum for hearing aid gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res31: 102–107.
23.
CoxRMRiveraIM. (1992). Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol3: 242–254.
24.
CoxRMTaylorIMGrayGABrainerdLE. (1994b). The contour test: Applications to hearing aid selection and fitting. Presented at the American Academy of Audiology Meeting, Richmond, VA, 1994.
25.
de JongeRR. (1985). A microcomputer-based hearing aid selection strategy. J Comp Users Speech Hear1: 117–138.
26.
de JongeRR. (1987). Hearing aid selection using a microcomputer. Hear Instr38 (5):126–130.
27.
de JongeRR. (1996). Real-ear measures: Individual variation and measurement error. In: ValenteM, ed. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 72–125.
28.
DillonH. (1985). Earmolds and high frequency response modification. Hear Instr36 (12):8, 11–12.
29.
DillonH. (1991). Allowing for real ear venting effects when selecting the coupler gain of hearing aids. Ear Hear12: 406–416.
30.
DillonHByrneDBattagliaJ. (1992). Hearing instrument selection: By dispenser or by computer? Hear Instr43 (8):18–21.
31.
DugalRLBraidaLDDurlachNI. (1980). Implications of previous research for the selection of frequencygain characteristics. In: StudebakerGAHochbergI, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 379–403.
32.
FabryDASchumDJ. (1994). The role of subjective measurement in hearing aid fittings. In: ValenteM, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 136–155.
33.
HawkinsDBMorrisonTMHalliganPLWCooperWA. (1989). Use of probe tube microphone measurements in hearing aid selection for children: Some initial clinical experiences. Ear Hear10: 281–287.
34.
HawkinsDMWaldenBEMontgomeryAAProsekRA. (1987). Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear8: 162–169.
35.
HellmanRPMeiselmanCH. (1993). Rate of loudness growth for pure tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am93: 966–975.
36.
KammCDirksDMickeyMR. (1978). Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on loudness discomfort level and most comfortable loudness judgments. J Speech Hear Res21: 668–681.
37.
KillionMC. (1996). Talking hair cells: What they have to say about hearing aids. In: BerlinCI, ed. Hair Cells and Hearing Aids. San Diego: Singular Press, 125–172.
38.
KillionMCFikret-PasaS. (1993). The 3 types of sensorineural hearing loss: Loudness and intelligibility considerations. Hear J46 (11):31–34.
39.
KillionMCRevitLJ. (1993). CORFIG and GIFROC: Real ear to coupler and back again. In: StudebakerGAHochbergI, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 65–85.
40.
LeijonA. (1991). Hearing aid gain for loudness-density normalization in cochlear hearing losses with impaired frequency resolution. Ear Hear12: 242–250.
41.
LibbyER. (1986). The 1/3 - 2/3 insertion gain hearing aid selection guide. Hear Instr37: 27–28.
42.
LippmanPRBraidaLDDurlachNI. (1981). Study of multichannel amplitude compression and linear amplification for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am69: 524–534.
43.
LybargerSF. (1944). US Patent application SN 543.278.
44.
LyregaardPE. (1988). POGO and the theory behind. In: JensenJH, ed. Hearing Aid Fitting: Proceedings of the 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Danavox, 81–94.
45.
McCandlessGALyregaardPE. (1983). Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr35 (1):16–21.
46.
MoodieKSSeewaldRCSinclairST. (1994). Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing aid performance in young children. Am J Audiol3: 23–31.
47.
PascoeDP. (1988). Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formulas for hearing aid gain. In: JensenJH, ed. Hearing Aid Fitting: Proceedings of the 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Danavox, 129–152.
48.
PavlovicCV. (1993). Problems in the prediction of speech recognition performance of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired individuals. In: StudebakerGAHochbergI, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 221–234.
49.
PavlovicCVStudebakerGASherbecoeRL. (1986). An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am80: 50–57.
50.
PearsonsKSBennettRLFidellS. (1976). Speech levels in various environments. BBN Rep. No. 3281 (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman).
51.
RevitL. (1994). Using coupler tests in the fitting of hearing aids. In: ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 64–107.
52.
RickettsTABentlerRA. (In Press). The effect of test signal type and bandwidth on the categorical scaling (CS) of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am.
53.
RickettsTA. (1996). Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures. Ear Hear17: 124–131.
54.
RobertsonPR. (1996). A guide to NAOAH-compatible programmable fitting software. Hear Rev3 (2):12,14,16,19,28–30.
55.
SachsRMBurkhardMD. (1972). Zwislocki coupler evaluation with insert earphones. Report No. 20022–1. Franklin Park, IL: Knowles Electronics.
56.
SeewaldRC. (1992). The desired sensation level method for fitting children: Version 3.0. Hear J45 (4):36–41.
57.
SeewaldRCMoodieKSZeliskoDLC. (1993a). Critique of current approaches to the selection and fitting of hearing aids. J Speech Lang Path Audiol Monogr. Suppl. 1, 29–37.
58.
SeewaldRCRamjiKVSinclairSTMoodieKSJamiesonDG. (1993b). A computer-assisted implementation of the Desired Sensation Level method for electroacoustic selection and fitting in children: DSL 3.1 user's manual. The Hearing Health Care Research Unit Technical Report 02. The University of Western Ontario. London, Ontario.
59.
SeewaldRCRossM. (1988). Amplification for young hearing-impaired children. In: PollackMC, ed. Amplification for the Hearing Impaired. New York: Grune and Stratton, 213–267.
60.
SeewaldRC. (1994). Fitting children with the DSL method. Hear J47 (9): 10, 49–51.
61.
ShawEAG. (1980). The acoustics of the external ear. In: StudebakerGAHochbergI, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 109–125.
62.
ShawEAG. (1974). The external ear. In: KeidelWDNeffWD, eds. Handbook of Sensory Physiology V/1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 455–490.
63.
ShoreIBilgerRCHirschI. (1960). Hearing aid evaluation: Reliability of repeated measurement. J Speech Hear Dis25: 152–167.
64.
StudebakerGAHochbergI. (1980). Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press.
65.
StudebakerGAHochbergI. (1993). Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
66.
StudebakerGASherbecoeRL. (1993). Frequencyimportance functions for speech recognition. In: StudebakerGAHochbergI, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 2nd ed.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 185–204.
67.
ThorntonARRaffinMJM. (1978). Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res21: 507–518.
68.
ValenteM. (1994). Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
69.
Van VlietD. (1995). A comprehensive hearing aid fitting protocol. Audiol Today7: 11–13.
70.
VillchurE. (1973). Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am53: 1646–1657.