Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Meth...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2021-08, Vol.64 (8), p.3317-3329 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3329 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 3317 |
container_title | Journal of speech, language, and hearing research |
container_volume | 64 |
creator | Plyler, Patrick N Hausladen, Jennifer Capps, Micaela Cox, Mary Alice |
description | Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method: A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results: Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions: Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient. [This research was presented at the Academy Research Conference, Professional Poster Session, and General Poster Session at the 31st Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Columbus, Ohio, 2019).] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00111 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2551581519</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A673449322</galeid><ericid>EJ1310306</ericid><sourcerecordid>A673449322</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a0542b656422173e0f00020037e4df898a2624f36f89d31d756448f4ad6717f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkl1rFDEUhgdR7If-AlECgngzNV-TmblcltVtGSlovQ7Z5GQ3JZvUZKbQf2-2W1srm1zkJed5Dycnp6reEXxGMOdfKKZEXvwclj9qSmqMCSEvqmPSNF3dE0xfFo17WnPWdUfVSc7XuCzCxevqiHHaCIzFcbVaWAt6RNGiJajkwhrNnEFXoDch-ri-QwPcgkcqGHQejLt1ZlIezTcqKT1Ccnl0OqMY0FAkBEjochp13AL6DipPCfKb6pVVPsPbh_O0-vV1cTVf1sPlt_P5bKg152SsFW44XYlGcEpJywDbUi7FmLXAje36TlFBuWWiaMOIaQvJO8uVES1prWCn1ed93psUf0-QR7l1WYP3KkCcsqRNQ5qONKQv6Mf_0Os4pVCqK1TfCEFL9idqrTxIF2wcy6N3SeVMtIzznlFaqPoAtd61QvkYwLpy_Yw_O8CXbWDr9EHDp38MG1B-3OTop9HFkJ-DbA_qFHNOYOVNcluV7iTBcjcy8mlkZBH3I1NcHx56Ma22YB49f2ekAO_3QPlt_RheXBBGMCvxPyuywL4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2595662756</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Plyler, Patrick N ; Hausladen, Jennifer ; Capps, Micaela ; Cox, Mary Alice</creator><creatorcontrib>Plyler, Patrick N ; Hausladen, Jennifer ; Capps, Micaela ; Cox, Mary Alice</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method: A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results: Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions: Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient. [This research was presented at the Academy Research Conference, Professional Poster Session, and General Poster Session at the 31st Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Columbus, Ohio, 2019).]</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-4388</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-9102</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00111</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34256006</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</publisher><subject>Acoustics ; Adult ; Adults ; Assistive Technology ; Audiology ; Auditory Perception ; Environmental Influences ; Female ; Hearing Aids ; Hearing Impairments ; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural ; Humans ; Hypotheses ; Individual Characteristics ; Listening ; Listening Comprehension ; Localization ; Male ; Noise ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care ; Preferences ; Research design ; Satisfaction ; Social aspects ; Speech ; Speech Communication ; Speech Perception ; Technology ; Technology application ; Word frequency ; Word lists</subject><ispartof>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 2021-08, Vol.64 (8), p.3317-3329</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Aug 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a0542b656422173e0f00020037e4df898a2624f36f89d31d756448f4ad6717f63</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7108-6807</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1310306$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34256006$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Plyler, Patrick N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hausladen, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capps, Micaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Mary Alice</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures</title><title>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</title><addtitle>J Speech Lang Hear Res</addtitle><description>Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method: A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results: Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions: Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient. [This research was presented at the Academy Research Conference, Professional Poster Session, and General Poster Session at the 31st Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Columbus, Ohio, 2019).]</description><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Assistive Technology</subject><subject>Audiology</subject><subject>Auditory Perception</subject><subject>Environmental Influences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hearing Aids</subject><subject>Hearing Impairments</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Sensorineural</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Individual Characteristics</subject><subject>Listening</subject><subject>Listening Comprehension</subject><subject>Localization</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Satisfaction</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Speech</subject><subject>Speech Communication</subject><subject>Speech Perception</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><subject>Word frequency</subject><subject>Word lists</subject><issn>1092-4388</issn><issn>1558-9102</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptkl1rFDEUhgdR7If-AlECgngzNV-TmblcltVtGSlovQ7Z5GQ3JZvUZKbQf2-2W1srm1zkJed5Dycnp6reEXxGMOdfKKZEXvwclj9qSmqMCSEvqmPSNF3dE0xfFo17WnPWdUfVSc7XuCzCxevqiHHaCIzFcbVaWAt6RNGiJajkwhrNnEFXoDch-ri-QwPcgkcqGHQejLt1ZlIezTcqKT1Ccnl0OqMY0FAkBEjochp13AL6DipPCfKb6pVVPsPbh_O0-vV1cTVf1sPlt_P5bKg152SsFW44XYlGcEpJywDbUi7FmLXAje36TlFBuWWiaMOIaQvJO8uVES1prWCn1ed93psUf0-QR7l1WYP3KkCcsqRNQ5qONKQv6Mf_0Os4pVCqK1TfCEFL9idqrTxIF2wcy6N3SeVMtIzznlFaqPoAtd61QvkYwLpy_Yw_O8CXbWDr9EHDp38MG1B-3OTop9HFkJ-DbA_qFHNOYOVNcluV7iTBcjcy8mlkZBH3I1NcHx56Ma22YB49f2ekAO_3QPlt_RheXBBGMCvxPyuywL4</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Plyler, Patrick N</creator><creator>Hausladen, Jennifer</creator><creator>Capps, Micaela</creator><creator>Cox, Mary Alice</creator><general>American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7108-6807</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures</title><author>Plyler, Patrick N ; Hausladen, Jennifer ; Capps, Micaela ; Cox, Mary Alice</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a0542b656422173e0f00020037e4df898a2624f36f89d31d756448f4ad6717f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Assistive Technology</topic><topic>Audiology</topic><topic>Auditory Perception</topic><topic>Environmental Influences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hearing Aids</topic><topic>Hearing Impairments</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Sensorineural</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Individual Characteristics</topic><topic>Listening</topic><topic>Listening Comprehension</topic><topic>Localization</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment, Health Care</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Satisfaction</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Speech</topic><topic>Speech Communication</topic><topic>Speech Perception</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><topic>Word frequency</topic><topic>Word lists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Plyler, Patrick N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hausladen, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capps, Micaela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, Mary Alice</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Plyler, Patrick N</au><au>Hausladen, Jennifer</au><au>Capps, Micaela</au><au>Cox, Mary Alice</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1310306</ericid><atitle>Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures</atitle><jtitle>Journal of speech, language, and hearing research</jtitle><addtitle>J Speech Lang Hear Res</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>3317</spage><epage>3329</epage><pages>3317-3329</pages><issn>1092-4388</issn><eissn>1558-9102</eissn><abstract>Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method: A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results: Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions: Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient. [This research was presented at the Academy Research Conference, Professional Poster Session, and General Poster Session at the 31st Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Columbus, Ohio, 2019).]</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Speech-Language-Hearing Association</pub><pmid>34256006</pmid><doi>10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00111</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7108-6807</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1092-4388 |
ispartof | Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 2021-08, Vol.64 (8), p.3317-3329 |
issn | 1092-4388 1558-9102 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2551581519 |
source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost Education Source; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Acoustics Adult Adults Assistive Technology Audiology Auditory Perception Environmental Influences Female Hearing Aids Hearing Impairments Hearing Loss, Sensorineural Humans Hypotheses Individual Characteristics Listening Listening Comprehension Localization Male Noise Outcome Assessment, Health Care Preferences Research design Satisfaction Social aspects Speech Speech Communication Speech Perception Technology Technology application Word frequency Word lists |
title | Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T23%3A01%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20Hearing%20Aid%20Technology%20Level%20and%20Individual%20Characteristics%20on%20Listener%20Outcome%20Measures&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20speech,%20language,%20and%20hearing%20research&rft.au=Plyler,%20Patrick%20N&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=3317&rft.epage=3329&rft.pages=3317-3329&rft.issn=1092-4388&rft.eissn=1558-9102&rft_id=info:doi/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00111&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA673449322%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2595662756&rft_id=info:pmid/34256006&rft_galeid=A673449322&rft_ericid=EJ1310306&rfr_iscdi=true |