Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(01): 37-51
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741117
Original Article

NAL-NL1 Procedure for Fitting Nonlinear Hearing Aids: Characteristics and Comparisons with Other Procedures

Denis Byrne
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia
,
Harvey Dillon
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia
,
Teresa Ching
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia
,
Richard Katsch
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia
,
Gitte Keidser
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A new procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids (National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure, version 1 [NAL-NL1]) is described. The rationale is to maximize speech intelligibility while constraining loudness to be normal or less. Speech intelligibility is predicted by the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), which has been modified to account for the reduction in performance associated with increasing degrees of hearing loss, especially at high frequencies. Prescriptions are compared for the NAL-NL1, desired sensation level [input/output], FIG6, and a threshold version of the Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum procedures. For an average speech input level, the NAL-NL1 prescriptions are very similar to those of the well-established NAL-Revised, Profound procedure. Compared with the other procedures, NAL-NL1 prescribes less low-frequency gain for flat and upward sloping audiograms. It prescribes less high-frequency gain for steeply sloping high-frequency hearing losses. NAL-NL1 tends to prescribe less compression than the other procedures. All procedures differ considerably from one another for some audiograms.

Abbreviations: Al = Articulation Index, CR = compression ratio, CT = compression threshold; DSL[i/o] = desired sensation level [input/output], IHAFF = Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum, LGOB = loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands, NAL-NL1 = National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure, version 1, NAL-R = NAL Revised, NAL-RP = NAL-Revised, Profound, PLL = preferred listening level, POGO = prescription of gain and maximum output, RAB = Ricketts and Bentler, rms = root mean square, SII = Speech Intelligibility Index, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Hearing aid prescription - nonlinear amplification - speech intelligibility


Publication History

Article published online:
28 February 2022

© 2001. 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

  • Allen JB, Hall JL, Peng PS. (1990). Loudness growth in 1/2 octave bands (LGOB)—a procedure for assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 88:745-753.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1969). American National Standards Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. (ANSI S3.5-1969). New York: ANSI.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1993). American National Standards Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. (ANSI S3.5-1993, draft v3 1) New York: ANSI.
  • Arlinger S, Billermark E, Oberg M, Lunner T, Hellgren J. (1998). Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol 27:51-61.
  • Barker C, Dillon H. (1999). Client preferences for compression threshold in single channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 20:127-139.
  • Bentler R, Pavlovic C. (1989). Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear 10:58-63.
  • Byrne D. (1983). Theoretical prescriptive approaches to selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Monogr Contemp Audiol 4(l):l-40.
  • Byrne D. (1986a). Effects of bandwidth and stimulus type on most comfortable loudness levels of hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:484-493.
  • Byrne D. (1986b). Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. JAcoust Soc Am 80:494-504.
  • Byrne D. (1987). Hearing aid selection formulae: same or different? Hear Instr 38(1):5-11.
  • Byrne D. (1992). Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 3:67-80.
  • Byrne D. (1993). Implications of National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) research for hearing aid gain and frequency response selection strategies. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 119-131.
  • Byrne D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to? J Am Acad Audiol 7:377-395.
  • Byrne D, Ching T. (1997). Optimising amplification for hearing-impaired children: issues and procedures. Aust Educators Deaf 3:21-28.
  • Byrne D, Cotton S. (1988). Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. J Speech Hear Res 31:178-186.
  • 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, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, Wilbraham K, Cox R, Hagerman B, Hetu R, Kei J, Lui C, Kiessling J, Kotby MN, Nasser NHA, LePage E, Kholy WAH, Nakanishi Y, Oyer H, Powell R, Stephens D, Meredith R, Sirimanna T, Tavartkiladze G, Frolenkov GI, Westerman S, Ludvidsen C. (1994). An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2108-2120.
  • Byrne D, Fifield D. (1974). Evaluation of hearing aid fittings for infants. Br J Audiol 8:47-54.
  • Byrne D, Murray N. (1986). Predictability of the required frequency response characteristics of a hearing aid from the pure tone audiogram. Ear Hear 7:63-70.
  • Byrne D, Noble W. (1998). Optimizing sound localization with hearing aids. Trends Amplific 3:49-73.
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. (1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements of the severely/profoundly hearing-impaired. Ear Hear 11:40-49.
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. (1991). Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. In: Studebaker G, Bess F, Beck L, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press.
  • Byrne D, Tonisson W. (1976). Selecting the gain of hearing aids for persons with sensorineural hearing losses. Scand Audiol 5:51-59.
  • Ching T, Newall P, Wigney D. (1996). Frequency response and gain requirements of severely and profoundly hearing impaired children. Aust J Audiol 18:99-101.
  • Ching T, Dillon H, Byrne D. (1998). Speech recognition of hearing impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1128-1140.
  • Ching T, Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear (in press).
  • Cornelisse L, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1995). The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854-1864.
  • Cox RM. (1995). Using loudness data for hearing aid selection: the IHAFF approach. Hear J 48(2):10-44.
  • Dillon H. (1996). Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and for what response times? Ear Hear 17:287-307.
  • Dillon H, Storey L, Grant F, Phillips A, Skelt L, Mavrias G, Woytowych W, Walsh M. (1998). Preferred compression threshold with 2:1 wide dynamic range compression in everyday environments. Aust J Audiol 20:33-44.
  • Hogan CA, Turner CW. (1998). High frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432-441.
  • Humes L. (1986). An evaluation of several rationales for selecting hearing aid gain. J Speech Hear Disord 51:272-281.
  • Humes L. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 10:26-39.
  • Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A. (1996). Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 25:153-160.
  • Killion M, Fikret-Pasa S. (1993). The 2 types of sensorineural hearing loss: loudness and intelligibility considerations. Hear J 46(11):31-34.
  • Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. (1997a). A digital filterbank hearing aid: predicting user preference and performance. Ear Hear 18:12-25.
  • Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. (1997b). A digital filterbank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms—user preference and performance. Ear Hear 18:373-387.
  • Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C.(1997c). A digital filterbank hearing aid: improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective judgments. Scand Audiol 26:169-176.
  • Lybarger SF. (July 3, 1944). U.S. Patent Application SN 543.278.
  • McCandless GA, Lyregaard PE. (1983). Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 34(1):16-17, 19-21.
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA. (1998). Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9:95-104.
  • Moore BCJ, Alcantara JI, Glasberg BR. (1998). Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multichannel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 32:177-195.
  • Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1997). A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Auditory Neurosci 3:289-311.
  • Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1998). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 32:317-327.
  • Noble W, Ter-Horst K, Byrne D. (1995). Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localization. J Am Acad Audiol 6:129-140.
  • Ricketts TA. (1996). Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness perception measures. Ear Hear 17:124-132.
  • Schwartz D, Lyregaard PE, Lundh P. (1988). Hearing aid selection for severe/profound hearing losses. Hear J 41(2):13-17.
  • Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Ramji KV, Sinclair ST, Moodie KS, Jamieson DG. (1996). DSL v4.0 for Windows Manual. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
  • Seewald RC, Zelisko DL, Ramji KV, Jamieson DG. (1991). A Computer-Assisted Implementation of the Desired Sensation Level Method for Electroacoustic Selection and Fitting in Children: Version 3.0. DSL 3.0 user's manual. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
  • Skinner MW. (1988). Hearing Aid Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Snik AFM, van den Borne S, Brokx JPL, Hoekstra C. (1995). Hearing aid fitting in profoundly hearing-impaired children: comparison of prescription rules. Scand Audiol 24:225-230.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1999). Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12-20.
  • Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. (1992). LASR3 (SSB):A Model for the Prediction of Average Speech Recognition Performance of Normal Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Persons. Laboratory Report 92-02, Hearing Sciences Laboratory. Memphis: Memphis State University.
  • Valente M, Van Vliet D. (1997). The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol. Trends Amplific 8:6-35.
  • Van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Plomp R. (1995). Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res 38:211-221.