<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com">
<title>Trends in Amplification recent issues</title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Trends in Amplification RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<prism:publicationName>Trends in Amplification</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1084-7138</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/2/75?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/76?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/87?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/107?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/124?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/1/3?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/4?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/44?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/4/281?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/283?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/300?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/316?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/332?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Trends in Amplification</title>
<url>http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moving at the Speed of Sound: Scientific Innovation in Auditory Research]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Limb, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809348498</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moving at the Speed of Sound: Scientific Innovation in Auditory Research]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>148</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>147</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The auditory midbrain implant (AMI) is a new hearing prosthesis designed for stimulation of the inferior colliculus in deaf patients who cannot sufficiently benefit from cochlear implants. The authors have begun clinical trials in which five patients have been implanted with a single shank AMI array (20 electrodes). The goal of this review is to summarize the development and research that has led to the translation of the AMI from a concept into the first patients. This study presents the rationale and design concept for the AMI as well a summary of the animal safety and feasibility studies that were required for clinical approval. The authors also present the initial surgical, psychophysical, and speech results from the first three implanted patients. Overall, the results have been encouraging in terms of the safety and functionality of the implant. All patients obtain improvements in hearing capabilities on a daily basis. However, performance varies dramatically across patients depending on the implant location within the midbrain with the best performer still not able to achieve open set speech perception without lip-reading cues. Stimulation of the auditory midbrain provides a wide range of level, spectral, and temporal cues, all of which are important for speech understanding, but they do not appear to sufficiently fuse together to enable open set speech perception with the currently used stimulation strategies. Finally, several issues and hypotheses for why current patients obtain limited speech perception along with several feasible solutions for improving AMI implementation are presented.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lim, H. H., Lenarz, M., Lenarz, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809348372</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>180</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>149</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Filtering to Match Hearing Aid Insertion Gain to Individual Ear Acoustics]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>When hearing aid gain is prescribed by software, gain is calculated based on the average acoustics for the age of patient, gender, mold type, and so on. The acoustics of the individual&rsquo;s ear often vary from the average values, so there will be a mismatch between the prescribed gain and the real-ear gain. Real-ear measurement can be used to verify the gain and adjust it to meet targets, but the quality of the match will be limited by the number of channels and the flexibility of the hearing aid. A potential way to improve this process is to generate a filter that compensates for variations in real-ear insertion gain due to individual ear acoustics. Such a filter could be included in the processing path of a digital hearing aid. This article describes how such a filter can be generated using the windowing method, and the principle is demonstrated in a real ear. The approach requires communication between the real-ear measurement and hearing aid programming software. A finite impulse response filter with group delay just over 2 ms matched insertion gain to target values within the acceptable tolerance defined by British Society of Audiology guidelines.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bell, S. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809344974</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Filtering to Match Hearing Aid Insertion Gain to Individual Ear Acoustics]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>189</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>181</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Effects of Bilateral Electric and Bimodal Electric--Acoustic Stimulation on Language Development]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There is no doubt that cochlear implants have improved the spoken language abilities of children with hearing loss, but delays persist. Consequently, it is imperative that new treatment options be explored. This study evaluated one aspect of treatment that might be modified, that having to do with bilateral implants and bimodal stimulation. A total of 58 children with at least one implant were tested at 42 months of age on four language measures spanning a continuum from basic to generative in nature. When children were grouped by the kind of stimulation they had at 42 months (one implant, bilateral implants, or bimodal stimulation), no differences across groups were observed. This was true even when groups were constrained to only children who had at least 12 months to acclimatize to their stimulation configuration. However, when children were grouped according to whether or not they had spent any time with bimodal stimulation (either consistently since their first implant or as an interlude to receiving a second) advantages were found for children who had some bimodal experience, but those advantages were restricted to language abilities that are generative in nature. Thus, previously reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral implantation early in a child&rsquo;s life may not extend to generative language. In fact, children may benefit from a period of bimodal stimulation early in childhood because low-frequency speech signals provide prosody and serve as an aid in learning how to perceptually organize the signal that is received through a cochlear implant.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nittrouer, S., Chapman, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809346160</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Effects of Bilateral Electric and Bimodal Electric--Acoustic Stimulation on Language Development]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>205</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>190</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Middle Ear Implantable Hearing Devices: An Overview]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Hearing loss affects approximately 30 million people in the United States. It has been estimated that only approximately 20% of people with hearing loss significant enough to warrant amplification actually seek assistance for amplification. A significant interest in middle ear implants has emerged over the years to facilitate patients who are noncompliant with conventional hearing aides, do not receive significant benefit from conventional aides, or are not candidates for cochlear implants. From the initial studies in the 1930s, the technology has greatly evolved over the years with a wide array of devices and mechanisms employed in the development of implantable middle ear hearing devices. Currently, these devices are generally available in two broad categories: partially or totally implantable using either piezoelectric or electromagnetic systems. The authors present an up-to-date overview of the major implantable middle ear devices. Although the current devices are largely in their infancy, indications for middle ear implants are ever evolving as promising studies show good results. The totally implantable devices provide the user freedom from the social and practical difficulties of using conventional amplification.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Haynes, D. S., Young, J. A., Wanna, G. B., Glasscock, M. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809346262</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Middle Ear Implantable Hearing Devices: An Overview]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>214</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>206</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Instructions to Authors]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/10847138090130030701</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Instructions to Authors]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>217</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>215</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/2/75?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[From the Editor]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/2/75?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Limb, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809335819</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[From the Editor]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>75</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>75</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/76?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Effects of High-Rate Pulse Trains on Electrode Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/76?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Overcoming issues related to abnormally high neural synchrony in response to electrical stimulation is one aspect in improving hearing with a cochlear implant. Desynchronization of electrical stimuli have shown benefits in neural encoding of electrical signals and improvements in psychophysical tasks. In the present study, 10 participants with either CII or HiRes 90k Advanced Bionics devices were tested for the effects of desynchronizing constant-amplitude high-rate (5,000 Hz) pulse trains on electrode discrimination of sinusoidal stimuli (1,000 Hz). When averaged across the sinusoidal dynamic range, overall improvements in electrode discrimination with high-rate pulses were found for 8 of 10 participants. This effect was significant for the group (<I>p</I> = .003). Nonmonotonic patterns of electrode discrimination as a function of sinusoidal stimulation level were observed. By providing additional spectral channels, it is possible that clinical implementation of constant-amplitude high-rate pulse trains in a signal processing strategy may improve performance with the device.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Runge-Samuelson, C. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809336739</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Effects of High-Rate Pulse Trains on Electrode Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>86</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>76</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/87?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Frequency-Lowering Devices for Managing High-Frequency Hearing Loss: A Review]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/87?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Frequency-lowering technology has been around for decades. The primary aim&mdash;namely, that of providing high-frequency information to those with severe high-frequency hearing loss&mdash;addresses a clinical need most conventional hearing devices are still unable to provide. Early studies with frequency-lowering technology reported mostly unfavorable results, and the devices never gained clinical popularity. However, as hearing aid (HA) technology becomes ever more sophisticated, it is appropriate to reconsider whether frequency-lowering HAs should be an amplification choice in those with high-frequency hearing loss. Recent research is yielding promise with people who wear frequency-lowering devices showing improved speech perception. Questions remain regarding patient candidacy and whether auditory training may result in better outcomes. The author also discusses future clinical directions and research needs for frequency lowering.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simpson, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809336421</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Frequency-Lowering Devices for Managing High-Frequency Hearing Loss: A Review]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>106</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>87</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/107?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Two Ears and Two (or More?) Devices: A Pediatric Case Study of Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/107?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Advances in technology and expanding candidacy guidelines have motivated many clinics to consider children with precipitously sloping high-frequency hearing loss as candidates for cochlear implants (CIs). A case study is presented of a pediatric CI patient whose hearing thresholds were preserved within 10 dB of preimplant levels (125-750 Hz) after receiving a fully inserted 31.5-mm electrode array at one ear. The primary goal of this study was to explore the possible benefit of using both a hearing aid (HA) and a CI at one ear while using a HA at the opposite ear. The authors find that although the use of bilateral hearing aids with a CI may only provide a slight benefit, careful attention must be paid to the coordinated fitting of devices, especially at the ear with two devices.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Uchanski, R. M., Davidson, L. S., Quadrizius, S., Reeder, R., Cadieux, J., Kettel, J., Chole, R. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809336423</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Two Ears and Two (or More?) Devices: A Pediatric Case Study of Bilateral Profound Hearing Loss]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>123</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>107</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/124?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Soft Cochlear Implantation: Rationale for the Surgical Approach]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/124?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Recent advances in cochlear implant technology have focused renewed attention on the preservation of residual hearing. The focus on preservation of residual hearing is driven by the concept of electroacoustic stimulation. This option depends on the insertion of a short cochlear implant electrode into the basal region of the cochlea while preserving native function in the apical region. The desire to preserve residual hearing has led to the development of the soft-surgery cochlear implantation technique. Here, the authors evaluate its various components. Avoiding entry of blood into the cochlea and the use of hyaluronate seem to be reasonably supported, whereas the use of topical steroids is unlikely to be beneficial. The site of entry into the cochlea, the use of contoured or straight devices, and the depth of insertion are also evaluated. The authors highlight the importance of systematic recording of outcomes and surgical events.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Friedland, D. R., Runge-Samuelson, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-05-14</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809336422</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Soft Cochlear Implantation: Rationale for the Surgical Approach]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>138</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>124</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/1/3?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[From the Editor]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/1/3?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Limb, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-03</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808331221</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[From the Editor]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>3</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/4?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Review Article: Review of the Literature on Temporal Resolution in Listeners With Cochlear Hearing Impairment: A Critical Assessment of the Role of Suprathreshold Deficits]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/4?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A critical review of studies of temporal resolution in listeners with cochlear hearing impairment is presented with the aim of assessing evidence for suprathreshold deficits. Particular attention is paid to the roles of variables&mdash;such as stimulus audibility, overall stimulus level, and participant's age&mdash;which may complicate the interpretation of experimental findings in comparing the performance of hearing-impaired (HI) and normal-hearing (NH) listeners. On certain temporal tasks (e.g., gap detection), the performance of HI listeners appears to be degraded relative to that of NH listeners when compared at equal SPL (sound pressure level). For other temporal tasks (e.g., forward masking), HI performance is degraded relative to that of NH listeners when compared at equal sensation level. A relatively small group of studies exists, however, in which the effects of stimulus audibility and level (and occasionally participant's age) have been controlled through the use of noise-masked simulation of hearing loss in NH listeners. For some temporal tasks (including gap-detection, gap-duration discrimination, and detection of brief tones in modulated noise), the performance of HI listeners is well reproduced in the results of noise-masked NH listeners. For other tasks (i.e., temporal integration), noise-masked hearing-loss simulations do not reproduce the results of HI listeners. In three additional areas of temporal processing (duration discrimination, detection of temporal modulation in noise, and various temporal-masking paradigms), further studies employing control of stimulus audibility and level, as well as age, are necessary for a more complete understanding of the role of suprathreshold deficits in the temporal-processing abilities of HI listeners.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reed, C. M., Braida, L. D., Zurek, P. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-03</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808325412</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Review Article: Review of the Literature on Temporal Resolution in Listeners With Cochlear Hearing Impairment: A Critical Assessment of the Role of Suprathreshold Deficits]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>43</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/44?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[User Evaluation of a Communication System That Automatically Generates Captions to Improve Telephone Communication]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/44?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This study examined the subjective benefit obtained from automatically generated captions during telephone-speech comprehension in the presence of babble noise. Short stories were presented by telephone either with or without captions that were generated offline by an automatic speech recognition (ASR) system. To simulate online ASR, the word accuracy (WA) level of the captions was 60% or 70% and the text was presented delayed to the speech. After each test, the hearing impaired participants (<I>n</I> = 20) completed the NASA-Task Load Index and several rating scales evaluating the support from the captions. Participants indicated that using the erroneous text in speech comprehension was difficult and the reported task load did not differ between the audio + text and audio-only conditions. In a follow-up experiment (<I>n</I> = 10), the perceived benefit of presenting captions increased with an increase of WA levels to 80% and 90%, and elimination of the text delay. However, in general, the task load did not decrease when captions were presented. These results suggest that the extra effort required to process the text could have been compensated for by less effort required to comprehend the speech. Future research should aim at reducing the complexity of the task to increase the willingness of hearing impaired persons to use an assistive communication system automatically providing captions. The current results underline the need for obtaining both objective and subjective measures of benefit when evaluating assistive communication systems.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., Kessens, J. M., Vlaming, M. S. M. G., Houtgast, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-03</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808330207</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[User Evaluation of a Communication System That Automatically Generates Captions to Improve Telephone Communication]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>68</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>44</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/4/281?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[From the Editor: Special Issue on Auditory Scene Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/4/281?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neuman, A. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-11-13</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808326757</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[From the Editor: Special Issue on Auditory Scene Analysis]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>282</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>281</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/283?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/283?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A common complaint among listeners with hearing loss (HL) is that they have difficulty communicating in common social settings. This article reviews how normal-hearing listeners cope in such settings, especially how they focus attention on a source of interest. Results of experiments with normal-hearing listeners suggest that the ability to selectively attend depends on the ability to analyze the acoustic scene and to form perceptual auditory objects properly. Unfortunately, sound features important for auditory object formation may not be robustly encoded in the auditory periphery of HL listeners. In turn, impaired auditory object formation may interfere with the ability to filter out competing sound sources. Peripheral degradations are also likely to reduce the salience of higher-order auditory cues such as location, pitch, and timbre, which enable normal-hearing listeners to select a desired sound source out of a sound mixture. Degraded peripheral processing is also likely to increase the time required to form auditory objects and focus selective attention so that listeners with HL lose the ability to switch attention rapidly (a skill that is particularly important when trying to participate in a lively conversation). Finally, peripheral deficits may interfere with strategies that normal-hearing listeners employ in complex acoustic settings, including the use of memory to fill in bits of the conversation that are missed. Thus, peripheral hearing deficits are likely to cause a number of interrelated problems that challenge the ability of HL listeners to communicate in social settings requiring selective attention.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shinn-Cunningham, B. G., Best, V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-11-13</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808325306</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>299</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>283</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/300?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evaluating the Benefit of Hearing Aids in Solving the Cocktail Party Problem]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/300?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The benefit of wearing hearing aids in multitalker, reverberant listening environments was evaluated in a study of speech-on-speech masking with two groups of listeners with hearing loss (younger/older). Listeners selectively attended a known spatial location in two room conditions (low/high reverberation) and identified target speech in the presence of two competing talkers that were either colocated or symmetrically spatially separated from the target. The amount of spatial release from masking (SRM) with bilateral aids was similar to that when listening unaided at or near an equivalent sensation level and was negatively correlated with the amount of hearing loss. When using a single aid, SRM was reduced and was related to the level of the stimulus in the unaided ear. Increased reverberation also reduced SRM in all listening conditions. Results suggest a complex interaction between hearing loss, hearing aid use, reverberation, and performance in auditory selective attention tasks.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marrone, N., Mason, C. R., Kidd, G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-11-13</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808325880</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluating the Benefit of Hearing Aids in Solving the Cocktail Party Problem]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>315</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>300</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/316?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Pitch Perception and Auditory Stream Segregation: Implications for Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/316?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Pitch is important for speech and music perception, and may also play a crucial role in our ability to segregate sounds that arrive from different sources. This article reviews some basic aspects of pitch coding in the normal auditory system and explores the implications for pitch perception in people with hearing impairments and cochlear implants. Data from normal-hearing listeners suggest that the low-frequency, low-numbered harmonics within complex tones are of prime importance in pitch perception and in the perceptual segregation of competing sounds. The poorer frequency selectivity experienced by many hearing-impaired listeners leads to less access to individual harmonics, and the coding schemes currently employed in cochlear implants provide little or no representation of individual harmonics. These deficits in the coding of harmonic sounds may underlie some of the difficulties experienced by people with hearing loss and cochlear implants, and may point to future areas where sound representation in auditory prostheses could be improved.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Oxenham, A. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-11-13</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808325881</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Pitch Perception and Auditory Stream Segregation: Implications for Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>331</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>316</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/332?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Time--Frequency Masking for Speech Separation and Its Potential for Hearing Aid Design]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/332?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A new approach to the separation of speech from speech-in-noise mixtures is the use of time&mdash;frequency (T-F) masking. Originated in the field of computational auditory scene analysis, T-F masking performs separation in the time&mdash;frequency domain. This article introduces the T-F masking concept and reviews T-F masking algorithms that separate target speech from either monaural or binaural mixtures, as well as microphone-array recordings. The review emphasizes techniques that are promising for hearing aid design. This article also surveys recent studies that evaluate the perceptual effects of T-F masking techniques, particularly their effectiveness in improving human speech recognition in noise. An assessment is made of the potential benefits of T-F masking methods for the hearing impaired in light of the processing constraints of hearing aids. Finally, several issues pertinent to T-F masking are discussed.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DeLiang Wang,  ]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-11-13</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713808326455</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Time--Frequency Masking for Speech Separation and Its Potential for Hearing Aid Design]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>353</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-12-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>332</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>