No description available.

The purpose of this study was to compare treatment outcomes between stimulus presentation conditions to children with moderate to severe SSD: a traditional paper presentation versus a computer software generated presentation. The participants were four monolingual kindergarten children with moderate to severe SSD. A multiple baseline across behaviors single subject design was employed in the study. Two non-stimulable, non-cognate sounds from two different manner categories were selected as sound targets. One sound error was treated using paper stimuli presented in a traditional paper table-top presentation (TAB condition) while the other sound error was treated using stimuli presented on the computer (CBI condition). Picture stimuli for both conditions were generated by the SCIP (Sound Contrasts in Phonology) software program. Treatment followed the paradigm described by Williams (2003). The number of treatment sessions, final treatment performance, and highest generalization performance are summarized for both treatment conditions in Table 1. Although conditions were counterbalanced, data are arranged by condition for ease of interpretation.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Intended Audience & Purpose: This conference is intended for otologists, audiologists, hearing aid specialists, psychologists, and nurses, who provide clinical management services for patients with tinnitus. The purpose of this conference is to provide a review of current evaluation and management strategies for the treatment of tinnitus.

BACKGROUND: New and improved methods of feedback suppression are routinely introduced in hearing aids; however, comparisons of additional gain before feedback (AGBF) values across instruments are complicated by potential variability across subjects and measurement methods. PURPOSE: To examine the variability in AGBF values across individual listeners and an acoustic manikin. RESEARCH DESIGN: A descriptive study of the reliability and variability of the AGBF measured within six commercially available feedback suppression (FS) algorithms using probe microphone techniques. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen participants and an acoustic manikin. RESULTS: The range of AGBF across the six FS algorithms was 0 to 15 dB, consistent with other recent studies. However, measures made in the participants ears and on the acoustic manikin within the same instrument suggest that across instrument comparisons of AGBF measured using acoustic manikin techniques may be misleading, especially when differences between hearing aids are small (i.e., less than 6 dB). Individual subject results also revealed considerable variability within the same FS algorithms. The range of AGBF values was as small as 7 dB and as large as 16 dB depending on the specific FS algorithm, suggesting that some models are much more robust than others. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest caution when selecting FS algorithms clinically since different models can demonstrate similar AGBF when averaging across ears, but result in quite different AGBF values in a single individual ear.