-transparent.png){kind=logo}
Two fitting algorithms for linear hearing aids were compared using a wearable digital hearing aid in a one-month blind field test: a prescriptive method (POGO II) and a new algorithm, LinEar. Both used seven bands for frequency shaping, and two channel compression limiting. When fitting LinEar, the subjects individually adjusted the frequency response according to specified criteria. LinEar used a lower compression threshold setting than prescribed by POGO II. Eight subjects tested the two algorithms in a one-months blind field test as well as in the laboratory. The individual LF- and HF-gain adjustments of the frequency response in LinEar showed rather large variations compared to the POGO II prescription. Measures of S/N for speech did not show any significant differences between LinEar and POGO II, while overall sound quality ratings in laboratory and field test showed that LinEar was rated significantly higher than POGO II.
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
March 1992,
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
August 1990,
Ear and hearing,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
January 1999,
Laryngo- rhino- otologie,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
June 2013,
IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
January 1984,
Scandinavian audiology,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
July 2003,
International journal of audiology,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
January 2018,
Trends in hearing,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
December 1982,
Laryngologie, Rhinologie, Otologie,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
September 2004,
Cochlear implants international,
T Lunner, and
J Hellgren, and
S Arlinger, and
C Elberling
August 1981,
British journal of audiology,
