In Sweden, about 10% of the adult population experienceshearing problems that cause them difficulties in everydaycommunication, and approximately 60 000 people are providedwith hearing aids each year. Despite the fact that modernhearing aids can facilitate speech communication in a widerange of listening environments, many hearing-aid users aredissatisfied with their hearing aids. It is likely that theclinical methods used for individual fitting of the hearingaids are not optimal. The current study investigates prescriptive methods fornonlinear, wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearinginstruments. The goal is to draw general conclusions about thepreferences of hearing aid users. Therefore, the prescriptionsare evaluated using well-established models of loudness andspeech intelligibility. Current methods differed considerably in prescribed gain.Evaluations in a laboratory test, with 20 hearing-impairedlisteners, showed that these differences led to largedifferences in perceived and calculated loudness, but only tominor differences in measured and predicted speech recognitionscores. The difference in loudness was explored in a studywhere 21 first-time hearing-aid users compared twoprescriptions. One method led to normal and the other toless-than-normal overall calculated loudness (according to theloudness model of Moore and Glasberg (1997)). The prescriptionthat led to less-than-normal overall loudness was clearlypreferred in field and in laboratory tests. Preferred overall loudness was then quantified.Hearing-impaired participants with mild to moderate hearingloss preferred considerably less-than-normal overall calculatedloudness in both eld and laboratory tests. There were nosignificant differences between inexperienced and experiencedhearing aid users. Normal-hearing participants, on the otherhand, preferred close-to-normal overall calculated loudness. Inaddition, a potential problem with the loudness model wasencountered: despite the fact that the hearing-impairedlisteners were provided with less than normal overallcalculated loudness, they rated loudness higher than thenormal-hearing listeners. The results refute the most commonly adopted rationale forprescriptive methods for WDRC hearing aids - that overallloudness should be restored to normal. Hearing-impairedlisteners with mild to moderate hearing loss preferredconsiderably less than normal overall loudness. This should betaken into account when deriving new prescriptive methods, andwhen providing clients with hearing aids. Key words:hearing impairment, hearing aid, nonlinear,WDRC, hearing aid experience, prescription, loudness, loudnessmodel, speech intelligibility, preference.

<p>In Sweden, about 10% of the adult population experienceshearing problems that cause them difficulties in everydaycommunication, and approximately 60 000 people are providedwith hearing aids each year. Despite the fact that modernhearing aids can facilitate speech communication in a widerange of listening environments, many hearing-aid users aredissatisfied with their hearing aids. It is likely that theclinical methods used for individual fitting of the hearingaids are not optimal.</p><p>The current study investigates prescriptive methods fornonlinear, wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearinginstruments. The goal is to draw general conclusions about thepreferences of hearing aid users. Therefore, the prescriptionsare evaluated using well-established models of loudness andspeech intelligibility.</p><p>Current methods differed considerably in prescribed gain.Evaluations in a laboratory test, with 20 hearing-impairedlisteners, showed that these differences led to largedifferences in perceived and calculated loudness, but only tominor differences in measured and predicted speech recognitionscores. The difference in loudness was explored in a studywhere 21 first-time hearing-aid users compared twoprescriptions. One method led to normal and the other toless-than-normal overall calculated loudness (according to theloudness model of Moore and Glasberg (1997)). The prescriptionthat led to less-than-normal overall loudness was clearlypreferred in field and in laboratory tests.</p><p>Preferred overall loudness was then quantified.Hearing-impaired participants with mild to moderate hearingloss preferred considerably less-than-normal overall calculatedloudness in both eld and laboratory tests. There were nosignificant differences between inexperienced and experiencedhearing aid users. Normal-hearing participants, on the otherhand, preferred close-to-normal overall calculated loudness. Inaddition, a potential problem with the loudness model wasencountered: despite the fact that the hearing-impairedlisteners were provided with less than normal overallcalculated loudness, they rated loudness higher than thenormal-hearing listeners.</p><p>The results refute the most commonly adopted rationale forprescriptive methods for WDRC hearing aids - that overallloudness should be restored to normal. Hearing-impairedlisteners with mild to moderate hearing loss preferredconsiderably less than normal overall loudness. This should betaken into account when deriving new prescriptive methods, andwhen providing clients with hearing aids.</p><p><b>Key words:</b>hearing impairment, hearing aid, nonlinear,WDRC, hearing aid experience, prescription, loudness, loudnessmodel, speech intelligibility, preference.</p>

Sound localization is a vital aspect of hearing for safe navigation of everyday environments. It is also an important factor in speech intelligibility. This ability is facilitated by the interaural level difference (ILD) cue, which arises from binaural hearing: a sound will be more intense at the nearer ear than the farther. In a hearing-impaired listener, this binaural cue may not be available for use and localization may be diminished. While conventional, bilateral, wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearing aids distort the interaural level difference by independently altering sound intensities in each ear, wirelessly-linked devices have been suggested to benefit this task by matching amplification in order to preserve ILD. However, this technology has been shown to have varying degrees of success in aiding speech intelligibility and sound localization. As hearing impairment has wide-ranging adverse impacts to physical and mental health, social activity, and cognition, the task of localization improvement must be urgently addressed. Toward this end, neural modelling techniques are used to determine neural representations of ILD cues for linked and unlinked bilateral WDRC hearing aids. Findings suggest that wirelessly-linked WDRC is preferable over unlinked hearing aids or unaided, hearing-impaired listening, although parameters for optimal benefit are dependent on sound level, frequency content, and preceding sounds. / Thesis / Master of Applied Science (MASc)