The method of paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid literature nearly 50 years ago. Over time, studies have found paired comparisons to be sensitive, valid, and reliable in determining either the perceptual difference or relative ranking among hearing aids and electroacoustic characteristics. With the increasing number of adjustable electroacoustic parameters in today’s digital hearing aids—and the lack of procedural guidelines necessary to fit many of them—the method of paired comparisons provides the clinician with the ability to compare different devices, electroacoustic characteristics, memory settings, or combinations of these variables under the listener’s everyday listening conditions. Furthermore, this procedure provides the clinician with the ability to individualize the prescriptive approach—which is predicated mainly on hearing threshold data and listening in quiet—so that a combination of parameters can be set to optimize the user’s listening needs in a given environment. In this article, the authors present an overview of the theoretical principle supporting this procedure, the various paired-comparison strategies and associated approaches, the advantages of this method, and recommended procedures for implementing the method of paired comparisons in the fitting of today’s sophisticated hearing aids.
Amlani, A.M. ( 2003). Paired-comparison preferences for polar directivity patterns in different listening environments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 5994.
2.
Amlani, A.M., & Nelson, P.D. ( 2009). Interaction effect of impulse noises on noise reduction technologies on ease of listening and loudness ratings. Manuscript in preparation.
3.
Amlani, A.M., Punch, J.L., & Rakerd, B. ( 2006). Speech clarity judgments of hearing-aid processed speech in noise: Differing polar patterns and acoustic environments. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 319-330.
4.
Box, J.E.P. ( 1957). Evolutionary operation: A method for increasing industrial productivity. Applied Statistics, 6, 81-101.
5.
Byrne, D. ( 1986). Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 494-504.
6.
Byrne, D. ( 1992). Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3, 67-80.
7.
Byrne, D., & Cotton, S. ( 1988). Evaluation of the National Acoustics Laboratories’ new hearing aid selection procedure. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 178-186.
8.
Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. ( 1981). Comparative reliability of warble tone thresholds under headphones and in sound field. Australian Journal of Audiology , 3, 12-14.
9.
Byrne, D., & Dillon, H. ( 1986). The National Acoustics Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear and Hearing, 7, 257-265.
10.
Byrne, D., Parkinson, A., & Newall, P. ( 1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear and Hearing , 11, 40-49.
11.
Byrne, D., Parkinson, A., & Newall, P. ( 1991). Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. In G. A. Studebaker, F. H. Bess, & L. B. Beck (Eds.), The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report II (pp. 295-300). Parkton, MD: York Press.
12.
Ching, T.Y.C., Newall, P., & Wigney, D. ( 1997). Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children’s amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptionsScandinavian Audiology, 26, 219-222.
13.
Cohn, J. ( 1894). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Gefuhlsbetonung der Farben, Helligkeiten, under ihrer Combinationen. Philosophische Studien, 10, 562-603.
14.
Cox, R.M., & McDaniel, D.M. (1984). Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: Application to hearing aid selection. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 758-766.
15.
Dirks, D.D., Ahlstrom, J., & Noffsinger, P.D. (1993). Preferred frequency response for two- and three-channel amplification systems. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 30, 305-317.
16.
Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G.A., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. ( 2004). Scaling methods (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Eisenberg, L.S., & Dirks, D.D. ( 1995). Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1157-1167.
18.
Eisenberg, L.S., Dirks, D.D., & Gornbein, J.A. (1997). Subjective judgments of speech clarity measured by paired comparisons and category rating. Ear and Hearing, 18, 294-306.
19.
Eisenberg, L.S., & Levitt H. ( 1991). Paired comparison judgments for hearing aid selection in children. Ear and Hearing, 12, 417-430.
20.
Fabry, D.A., & Schum, D.J. ( 1994). The role of subjective measurement techniques in hearing aid fittings. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (pP. 136-155) . New York: Thieme.
21.
Fechner, G.T. ( 1860). Element der Psychophysik [Elements of psychophysics] . Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf & Härterl.
22.
Franck, B.A.M., Boymans, M., & Dreschler, W.A. (2007). Interactive fitting of multiple algorithms implemented in the same digital hearing aid. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 388-397.
23.
Franck, B.A.M., Dreschler, W.A., & Lyzenga, J. ( 2004). Methodological aspects of an adaptive multidirectional pattern search to optimize speech perception using three hearing-aid algorithms . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3620-3628.
24.
Gatehouse, S. ( 1993). Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency response for hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 4, 296-306.
25.
Green, D.M., & Swets, J.A. ( 1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
26.
Harris, R., & Goldstein, D. ( 1979). Effect of room reverberation upon hearing aid quality judgments. Audiology, 18, 253-262.
27.
Jeffers, J. ( 1960). Quality judgments in hearing aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 25, 259-266.
28.
Jenstad, L.M., Bagatto, M.P., Seewald, R.C., Scollie, S.D., Cornelisse, L.E., & Scicluna, R. ( 2007). Evaluation of the desired sensation level [input/output] algorithm for adults with hearing loss: The acceptable range for amplified conversational speech. Ear and Hearing, 28, 793-811.
29.
Kochkin, S. ( 2005). Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hearing Journal, 58(9), 30-37.
30.
Kuk, F.K. ( 1992). Evaluation of the efficacy of a multimemory hearing aid . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3, 338-348.
31.
Kuk, F.K. ( 1994a). A screening procedure for modified Simplex in frequency gain response selection. Ear and Hearing, 15, 62-70.
32.
Kuk, F.K. ( 1994b). Use of paired comparisons in hearing aid fittings. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings (pp.108-135). New York: Thieme.
33.
Kuk, F.K. ( 2002). Paired comparisons as a fine-tuning tool in hearing aid fittings. In M. Valente (Ed.), Strategies for selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings (2nd ed., pp. 125-150). New York: Thieme.
34.
Kuk, F.K., & Lau, C. ( 1995). The application of binomial probability theory to paired comparison judgments. American Journal of Audiology, 4, 37-42.
35.
Kuk, F.K., & Lau, C. ( 1996a). Comparison of preferred frequency gain settings obtained with category rating and modified simplex procedure. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 322-331.
36.
Kuk, F.K., & Lau, C. ( 1996b). Effect of hearing aid experience on preferred insertion gain selection. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology , 7, 274-281.
37.
Kuk, F.K., & Pape, N. ( 1992). The reliability of a modified simplex procedure in hearing frequency-response selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 418-429.
38.
Kuk, F.K., & Pape, N. ( 1993). Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 168-177.
39.
Levitt, H., Collins, J., Dubno, J., Resnick, S., & White, R. ( 1978). Development of a protocol for the prescriptive fitting of a wearable master hearing aid (CSL Research Report No. 11, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disease and Stroke). New York: City University of New York.
40.
Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 604-617.
41.
McGee, V.E. ( 1964). Semantic components of the quality of processed speech . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 7, 310-323.
42.
Moore, B.C.J. ( 2001). Dead regions in the cochlea: Diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends in Amplification, 5, 1-34.
43.
Montgomery, A., Schwartz, D., & Punch, J. ( 1982). Tournament strategies in hearing aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 363-372.
44.
Munro, K.J., & Lutman, M.E. ( 2005). Sound quality judgments of new hearing instrument users over a 24-week post-fitting period. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 92-101.
45.
Naidoo, S.V., & Hawkins, D.B. ( 1997). Monaural/binaural preferences: Effect of hearing aid circuit on speech intelligibility and sound quality. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 188-202.
46.
Neuman A. C., & Levitt, H. ( 1990). Selection procedure for digital hearing aids. Seminars in Hearing, 11, 79-90.
47.
Neuman, A.C., & Levitt, H. ( 1993). The application of adaptive test strategies to hearing aid selection. In G. A. Studebaker & I. Hochberg (Eds.), Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance (pp. 103-117). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
48.
Neuman, A.C., Levitt, H., Mills, R., & Schwander, T. ( 1987). An evaluation of three adaptive hearing aid selection strategies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1967-1976.
49.
Preminger, J.E., & Cunningham, D.R. (2003). Case-study analysis of various field study measures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 14, 39-55.
50.
Preminger, J.E., Neuman, A.C., Bakke, M.H., Walters, D., & Levitt, H. ( 2000). An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure . Ear and Hearing, 21, 177-193.
51.
Preminger, J.E., & Van Tasell, D.J. (1995). Measurement of speech quality as a tool to optimize the fitting of a hearing aid. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 726-736.
52.
Punch, J.L. ( 1978). Quality judgments of hearing aid processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners. Journal of the American Audiological Society, 3, 179-188.
53.
Punch, J.L., & Beck, E.L. ( 1980). Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders , 45, 325-335.
54.
Punch, J.L., & Howard, M.T. ( 1978). Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Journal of the American Audiological Society, 4, 69-76.
55.
Punch, J.L., & Parker, C.A. ( 1981). Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 366-374.
56.
Punch, J.L., Rakerd, B., & Amlani, A.M. ( 2001). Paired-comparison hearing aid preferences: Evaluation of an unforced choice paradigm. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 190-201.
57.
Purdy, S., & Pavlovic, C. ( 1992). Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired comparison judgments of speech intelligibility by older listeners. Audiology, 31, 254-271.
58.
Raffin, M., & Thornton, A. ( 1980). Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores: A research note. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 23, 5-18.
59.
Saunders, G.H., & Morgan, D.E. ( 2003). Impact on hearing targets of measuring thresholds in dB HL versus dB SPL. International Journal of Audiology, 42, 319-326.
60.
Stelmachowicz, P.G., Lewis, D.E., Hoover, B., & Keefe, D.H. ( 1999). Subjective effects of peak clipping and compression limiting in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 412-422.
61.
Stevens, S. S. (Ed.). (1951). Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley.
62.
Studebaker, G. ( 1982). Hearing aid selection: An overview. In G. Studebaker & F. Bess (Eds.), The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report: State of the art research needs (pp. 147-155). Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology.
63.
Studebaker, G.A., Bisset, J.D., & Van Ort, D.M. (1980). Paired comparison judgments of relative speech intelligibility. Paper presented at the meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Los Angeles, CA.
64.
Studebaker, G.A., Bisset, J.D., Van Ort, D.M., & Hoffnung, S.U. (1982). Paired comparison judgments of relative speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 12, 80-92.
65.
Studebaker, G.A., White, R., & Hoffnung, S.U. (1979). Evaluation of a paired comparison elimination paradigm as a method of selecting hearing aids. Paper presented at the meeting of the Acoustical Society of America , Cambridge, MA.
66.
Thorndike, E.L. ( 1910). Handwriting. Part I. The measurement of the quality of handwriting: The derivation of the scales. Teacher’s College Record, 11(2), 67-69.
67.
Thornton, A., & Raffin, M. ( 1978). Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 507-518.
68.
Thurstone, L.L. ( 1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychology Review, 34, 273-286.
69.
Witter, H., & Goldstein, D. ( 1971). Quality judgments of hearing aid transduced speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 312-322.
70.
Zerlin, S. ( 1962). A new approach to hearing-aid selection. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5, 370-376.
