A summary of the results shows that with 5 of the 9 subjects the high-frequency consonant scores indicated the same aid for the patient that the NU-6 scores indicated. In 2 cases the NU-6 indicated amplification was appropriate whereas the high-frequency consonant scores indicated amplification was not appropriate. Obviously, the high-frequency consonant scores should be considered supplemental to the NU-6 scores and not as a replacement for the NU-6. The combination of the NU-6 and the high-frequency consonant results for Subject 1 may indicate that the patient should have received further counseling and should have been taught how to communicate more effectively without an aid. The high-frequency consonant scores obtained by 2 of the subjects indicated different aids than the ones indicated by the NU-6 test and the patient preference. Perhaps the reason the patient chose an aid other than the one that would most benefit him was that he was most comfortable with the aid that allowed him to hear in the manner to which he was accustomed, even if he did not do as well with it. If a person had become accustomed to not hearing the high-frequency sounds, an aid that suddenly allowed him to hear those sounds might disturb him. The addition of high-frequency amplification might have made speech sound foreign to him. It would have been much easier for him to choose the aid that he was most comfortable with.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ETSU/oai:dc.etsu.edu:etsu-works-2-1087 |
| Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Creators | Dennison, L. B., Kelly, B R. |
| Publisher | Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University |
| Source Sets | East Tennessee State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Source | ETSU Faculty Works |
Page generated in 0.0014 seconds