Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationArticle1 Oct 2013Perspectives on Hearing Aids and Aural Rehabilitation David B. Hawkins David B. Hawkins Retired from Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/arii20.2.44 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In The author recently completed a 40-year career in audiology with a primary interest in hearing aids and adult aural rehabilitation. He describes how the field of audiology has changed over this period in the areas of hearing aid selection, hearing aid fitting, hearing aid options and distribution, and adult group aural rehabilitation. Suggestions for future directions are made in each of the areas. References Abrams, H. B., Chisolm, T. H., McManus, M., & McArdle, R. (2012). Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23(10), 768–778. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar American Academy of Audiology. (2006). Guideline for the audiological management of adult hearing impairment.Audiology Today, 18(5), 32–36. Google Scholar ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting. (1998). Guideline for hearing aid fitting for adults.American Journal of Audiology, 7, 5–13. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Bagatto, M., Scollie, S., Hyde, M., & Seewald, R. (2010). Protocol for the provision of amplification within the Ontario infant hearing program.International Journal of Audiology, 49, S70–S79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Berger, K., Hagberg, E., & Rane, R. (1984). Prescription of hearing aids: Rationale, procedures and results. Kent, OH: Herald. Google Scholar Byrne, D., & Tonisson, W. (1976). Selecting the gain of hearing aids for persons with sensorineural hearing impairments.Scandinavian Audiology, 5, 51–59. Google Scholar Hawkins, D. (2005). Effectiveness of counseling-based adult group aural rehabilitation programs: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16(7), 485–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Hawkins, D. (2006). Improving adult hearing care with counseling-based aural rehabilitation groups.In R. Seewald, & C. Palmer (Eds.) Hearing Care for Adults 2006: Proceedings of the First International Adult Conference (pp. 301–306). Chicago, IL: Phonak. Google Scholar Hawkins, D., Montgomery, A., Prosek, R., & Walden, B. (1987). Examination of two issues concerning functional gain measurements.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 20, 105–117. Google Scholar Hawkins, D., & Stamper, G. (2010). Just $19.95…But wait, there’s more.Hearing Journal, 62(3), 32–34. Google Scholar Hickson, L., Worrall, L., & Scarinci, N. (2007). A randomized controlled trial evaluating the active communication education program for older people with hearing impairment.Ear and Hearing, 28(2), 212–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar King, A. (2010). The national protocol for paediatric amplification in Australia.International Journal of Audiology, 49, S64–S69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Laplante-Lévesque, A., Hickson, L., & Worrall, L. (2012). What makes adults with hearing impairment take up hearing aids or communication programs and achieve successful outcomes?.Ear and Hearing, 33(1), 79–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Leavitt, R., & Flexer, C. (2012). The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing.Hearing Review, 19(12), 18–21. Google Scholar McCandless, G., & Lyregaard, P. (1983). Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids.Hearing Instruments, 34(10), 16–21. Google Scholar Mueller, H. G., & Picou, E. (2010). Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures.Hearing Journal, 63(5), 27–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Preminger, J. E., & Meeks, S. (2010). Evaluation of an audiological rehabilitation program for spouses of people with hearing loss.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(5), 315–328. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Preminger, J. E., & Yoo, J. (2010). Do group audiologic rehabilitation activities influence psychosocial outcomes?.American Journal of Audiology, 19(2) 109–125. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 20Issue 2October 2013Pages: 44-55 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Oct 1, 2013 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2013 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".