A Comparison of Single-Channel Linear Amplification and Two-Channel Wide-Dynamic-Range-Compression Amplification by Means of an Independent-Group Design The present study used an independent-group design to compare the benefits provided by binaural, single-channel, linear, full-shell in-the-ear hearing aids and binaural, 2-channel, wide-dynamic-range-compression in-the-canal hearing aids in groups of older hearing aid wearers. Hearing aid outcome measures were obtained at both 1-month (n = 53) and 6-month (n = ... Research Article
EDITOR'S AWARD
Research Article  |   June 01, 2004
A Comparison of Single-Channel Linear Amplification and Two-Channel Wide-Dynamic-Range-Compression Amplification by Means of an Independent-Group Design
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Larry E. Humes
    Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 4705-7002
  • Lauren E. Humes, PhD
    Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 4705-7002
  • Dana L. Wilson
    Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 4705-7002
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: humes@indiana.edu
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Research and Technology / Research Articles
Research Article   |   June 01, 2004
A Comparison of Single-Channel Linear Amplification and Two-Channel Wide-Dynamic-Range-Compression Amplification by Means of an Independent-Group Design
American Journal of Audiology, June 2004, Vol. 13, 39-53. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2004/007)
History: Received September 12, 2003 , Accepted December 16, 2003
 
American Journal of Audiology, June 2004, Vol. 13, 39-53. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2004/007)
History: Received September 12, 2003; Accepted December 16, 2003

The present study used an independent-group design to compare the benefits provided by binaural, single-channel, linear, full-shell in-the-ear hearing aids and binaural, 2-channel, wide-dynamic-range-compression in-the-canal hearing aids in groups of older hearing aid wearers. Hearing aid outcome measures were obtained at both 1-month (n = 53) and 6-month (n = 34) postfit intervals with each device. Outcome measures included multiple measures of speech-recognition performance and self-report measures of hearing aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage. Aided sound-quality measurements were also obtained. Although both devices provided significant benefits to the wearers, there were no significant differences in the benefits provided by either device at the 1-month or 6-month postfit intervals.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Nancy Barlow, Carolyn Garner, Amy Arthur, and Nathan Amos for their assistance with the collection of the clinical data reported here. This work was supported, in part, by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 AG08293 to Larry E. Humes.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access