Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(04): 190-202
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748045
Original Article

Assessing Growth of Loudness in Children by Cross-Modality Matching

Yula Cherpelis Serpanos
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York
,
Judith S. Gravel
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Rose F. Kennedy Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study examined the clinical feasibility, validity, and reliability of loudness growth assessment using cross-modality matching (CMM) between line length and loudness in 16 children 4 to 12 years old with normal hearing or bilateral sensorineural hearing losses ranging from moderate to severe in degree. Eight adult listeners with normal hearing were used as a comparison group. Loudness growth functions and real-ear measures were obtained for 500–Hz and 2000-Hz narrowband noise stimuli for each individual. No significant differences were found between the loudness slope values for the adults and children with normal hearing. Loudness growth functions of the children with sensorineural hearing loss were significantly steeper (larger) than the slopes obtained from children with normal hearing. The numeric slope value of the loudness growth function became larger and more variable as children's hearing threshold increased and differed for children with similar thresholds. The loudness functions obtained for retested participants at two different test sessions were highly correlated. Real-ear measurements revealed that for equivalent input stimulus levels, significantly higher stimulus levels were present in the ear canals of children versus adults. Although adults and children with normal hearing had similar overall rates of loudness growth, discrete points along the loudness growth function were judged to be louder by the children. This preliminary study suggests that measures of loudness growth using CMM between line length and loudness are feasible, valid, and reliable in children with normal hearing or sensorineural hearing loss. The individual variability noted in slope values for children with hearing loss attests to the importance of subjective assessments of loudness. The protocol used in this study may have potential as a clinical tool for selecting and fitting amplification technology for children with hearing loss as young as 6 years.

Abbreviations: CMM = cross-modality matching, HI = hearing impairment, LDL = loudness discomfort level, MCL = most comfortable loudness, NBN = narrowband noise, NH = normal hearing

Key Words

Children - cross-modality matching - loudness - loudness growth functions - sensorineural hearing loss


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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1996), American National Standard Specifications for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6,1989). New York: ANSI.
  • American Speech and Hearing Association Committee on Audiometric Evaluation. (1978). Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. ASHA 20:297–301.
  • Byrne D. (1992). Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 3:67–80.
  • Collins AA, Gescheider GA. (1989). The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. J Acoust Soc Am 85:2012–2021.
  • Dillon H. (1995). Compression in hearing aids. In: Sandlin RE, ed. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification, Volume II. San Diego: Singular, 121–146.
  • Ellis MR, Wynne MK. (1999). Measurements of loudness growth in 1/2–octave bands for children and adults with normal hearing. Am J Audiol 8:40–46.
  • Fillion PR, Margolis RH. (1992). Comparison and real-life judgments of loudness discomfort. J Am Acad Audiol 3:193–199.
  • Gamier S, Micheyl C, Berger-Vachon C, Collet L. (1999). Effect of signal duration on categorical loudness scaling in normal and in hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 38:196–201.
  • Geller D, Margolis RH. (1984). Magnitude estimation of loudness I: application to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res 21–.20–21.
  • Hedley-Williams A, Tharpe AM, Bess FH. (1996). Fitting hearing aids in the pediatric population: a survey of practice procedures. In: Bess FH, Gravel JS, Tharpe AM, eds. Amplification for Children with Auditory Deficits. Nashville: Bill Wilkerson Center Press, 107–122.
  • Hellman RR (1999). Cross-modality matching: a tool for measuring loudness in sensorineural loss. Ear Hear 20:193–213.
  • Hellman RP, Meiselman CH. (1988). Prediction of individual loudness exponents from cross-modality matching. J Speech Hear Res 31:605–615.
  • Hellman RP, Meiselman CH. (1990). Loudness relations for individuals and groups in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88:2596–2606.
  • Hellman RP, Meiselman CH. (1993). Rate of loudness growth for pure tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 93:966–975.
  • Humes LE, Hailing DC. (1994). Overview, rationale, and comparison of suprathreshold-based gain prescription methods. In: Valente Μ, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme Medical, 19–37.
  • Kawell ME, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG. (1988). Loudness discomfort levels in children. Ear Hear 9:133–136.
  • Kiessling J. (1987). Acoustic reflexes in hearing aid evaluation. Semin Hear 8:391–404.
  • Launer S. (1995). Loudness Perception in Listeners with Sensorineural Hearing Impairment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
  • MacPherson BJ, Elfenbein JL, Schum RL, Bentier R. (1991). Thresholds of discomfort in young children. Ear Hear 12:184–190.
  • Mahoney TM. (1985). Auditory brainstem response hearing aid applications. In: Jacobson JT, ed. The Auditory Brainstem Response. San Diego: College-Hill, 349–370.
  • Margolis RH. (1985). Magnitude estimation of loudness. III. Performance of selected hearing aid users. J Speech Hear Res 28:411–420.
  • Moore BCJ. (1989). An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. 3rd Ed. New York: Academic, 47–83.
  • Northern JL, Abbot-Gabbard S. (1994). The acoustic reflex. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 4th Ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 300–316.
  • Pediatric Working Group. (1996). Amplification for Infants and Children with Hearing Loss. Conference on Amplification for Children with Auditory Deficits. Nashville: Bill Wilkerson Center Press.
  • Popelka GR, Mason DI. (1987). Factors which affect measures of speech audibility with hearing aids. Ear Hear 8:109S-118S.
  • Seewald RC. (1991). Hearing aid output limiting considerations for children. In: Feigin JA, Stelmachowicz PG, eds. Pediatric Amplification: Proceedings of the 1991 National Conference. Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital, 19–36.
  • Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Sinclair ST, Cornelisse LE. (1996). Traditional and theoretical approaches to selecting amplification for infants and young children. In: Bess FH, Gravel JS, Tharpe AM, eds. Amplification for Children with Auditory Deficits. Nashville: Bill Wilkerson Center Press, 161–191.
  • Seitz MR, Kisiel DL. (1995). Hearing aid assessment and the auditory brainstem response. In: Sandlin RE, ed. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification. Vol. II. San Diego: Singular, 203–224.
  • Serpanos YC, O'Malley H, Gravel JS. (1997). The relationship between intensity functions of loudness and the ABR wave V latency for clicks. Ear Hear 18:409–419.
  • Serpanos YC, O'Malley H, Gravel JS. (1998). Cross-modality matching as the loudness growth function for click stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1022–1032.
  • Skinner MW. (1988). Hearing Aid Evaluation. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Stelmachowicz PG, Kalberer A, Lewis DE. (1996). Situational hearing aid response profile (SHARP). In: Bess FH, Gravel JS, Tharpe AM, eds. Amplification for Children with Auditory Deficits. Nashville: Bill Wilkerson Center Press, 193–213.
  • Stevens SS. (1959). On the validity of the loudness scale. J Acoust Soc Am 31:995–1003.
  • Stevens SS. (1975). Psychophysics. Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Tecca JE. (1990). Clinical application of real-ear probe tube measurement. In: Sandlin RE, ed. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification. Vol. II. San Diego: Singular, 225–255.
  • Teghtsoonian M. (1980). Children's scales of length and loudness: a developmental application of cross-modal matching. J Exp Child Psychol 30:290–307.
  • Thalmann R. (1965). Cross modality matching in the study of abnormal loudness functions. Laryngoscope 75:1708–1726.
  • Venema T. (1998). Compression for Clinicians. San Diego: Singular.
  • Zwislocki JJ, Goodman DA. (1980). Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a validation. Percept Psychophys 28:28–38.