1. Barrenas, M., and Hellstrom, P. (1996). “The Effect of Low Level Acoustic Stimulation on Susceptibility to Noice in Blue- and Brown-Eyed Young Human Subjects,” Ear Hear. 17(1) 63-68. 2. Brown, C.J., Abbas, P.J., Bertschy, M., Tyler, R.S., Lowder, M., Takahashi, G., Purdy, S., and Gantz, B. J. (1995). “Longitudinal Assessment of Physiological and Psychophysical Measures in Cochlear Implant Users,” Ear Hear. 16(5), 439- 449. 3. Chisolm, T.H., Abrams, H.B., and McArdle, R. (2004). “Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Adult Audiological Rehabilitation,” Ear Hear. 25(5), 464-477. 4. Clark, W.W., and Bohl, C.D. (2005). “Hearing Levels of Firefighters: Risk of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Assessed by Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data,” Ear Hear. 26(3), 327-340. 5. Clarke, C.M., and Garrett, M.F. (2004). “Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3647-3658. 6. Cox, R.M., and Alexander, G.C. (1999). “Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: The SADL Scale,” Ear Hear. 20(4), 306. 7. Divenyi, P.L., Stark, P.B., and Haupt, K.M. (2005). “Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the elderly,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 1089-1100. 8. Dunn, C.C., Tyler, R.S., and Witt, S.A. (2005). “Benefit of Wearing a Hearing Aid on the Unimplanted Ear in Adult Users of a Cochlear Implant,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 48 (3), 668-680. 9. Eisenberg, L.S., Shannon, R.V., Martinez, A.S., Wygonski, J., and Boothroyd, A. (2000). “Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 2704-2710. 10. Ferguson, S.H., and Kewley-Port, D. (2002). “Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 259-271. 11. Florentine, M., Hunter, W., Robinson, M., Ballou, M., and Buus, S. (1998). “On the Behavioral Characteristics of Loud-Music Listening,” Ear Hear. 19(6), 420- 428. 12. Gould, J., Lane, H., Vick, J., Perkell, J.S., Matthies, M.L., and Zandipour, M. (2001). “Changes in Speech Intelligibility of Postlingually Deaf Adults after Cochlear Implantation,” Ear Hear. 22(6), 453-460. 13. Hartley, D.E.H., and Moore, D.R. (2002). “Auditory processing efficiency deficits in children with developmental language impairments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 2962-2966. 14. Humes, L. E., and Floyd, S. S. (2005). “Measures of Working Memory, Sequence Learning, and Speech Recognition in the Elderly,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 48 (1), 224-235. 15. Humes, L. E., and Wilson, D.L. (2003). “An Examination of Changes in Hearing- Aid Performance and Benefit in the Elderly Over a 3-Year Period of Hearing-Aid Use,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 46(1), 137-145. 16. Humes, L.E. (2005). “Do 'Auditory Processing' Tests Measure Auditory Processing in the Elderly?,” Ear Hear. 26(2), 109-119. 17. Jerger, J., Chmiel, R., Florin, E., Pirozzolo, F., and Wilson, N. (1996). “Comparison of Conventional Amplification and an Assistive Listening Device in Elderly Persons”, Ear Hear. 17(6), 490-504. 18. Kennedy, S.M., Hodgson, M., Edgett, L.D., Lamb, N., and Rempel, R. (2006). "Subjective assessment of listening environments in university classrooms: Perceptions of students,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 299-309. 19. Moore, B.C.J., Peters, R.W., and Stone, M.A. (1999). “Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 400-411. 20. Náb lek, A.K., and Robinson, P.K. (1982). “Monaural and binaural speech perception in reverberation for listeners of various ages,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 71, 1242-1248. 21. Qin, M.K., and Oxenham, A.J. (2003). “Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 446-454. 22. Shanks, J. E., Wilson, R.H., Larson, V., and Williams, D. (2002). “Speech Recognition Performance of Patients with Sensorineural Hearing Loss Under Unaided and Aided Conditions Using Linear and Compression Hearing Aids,” Ear Hear. 23(4), 280-290. 23. Sommers, M.S., Tye-Murray, N., and Spehar, B. (2005). “Auditory-Visual Speech Perception and Auditory-Visual Enhancement in Normal-Hearing Younger and Older Adults,” Ear Hear. 26(3), 263-275. 24. Suter, A.H. (1985). “Speech recognition in noise by individuals with mild hearing impairments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 78, 887-900. 25. Walden, B.E., Grant, K.W., and Cord, M.T. (2001). “Effects of Amplification and Speechreading on Consonant Recognition by Persons with Impaired Hearing,” Ear Hear. 22(4) 333-341. Guidelines for article critiques You are required to critique two articles chosen from the list above. You are encouraged to choose articles from different areas. For example, if you picked one on hearing aid outcome, you might want pick the other from a different area such as hearing conservation. Use the following guidelines to frame your critique. Keep in mind that some of these concepts have not been discussed in class yet. The critiques should be two (2) single-spaced pages in length. Please use a 12-point font (either Arial or Times New Roman, with no less than 0.5” of margin around the page). The first page of each critique should contain the following: 1. Article Title: 2. Author(s): 3. Complete Journal Citation (journal name, volume number, page numbers and year of publication). Use APA guidelines when citing the journal. 4. Purpose of the study 5. List of names and values of independent variables 6. List of dependent variables 7. Type(s) of sampling used 8. Type of research (True experimental/Quasi experimental/Ex-post-facto) 9. Description of research design (e.g., “2 x 2 factorial, independent group design”) and 1-2 sentences supporting this classification of design [e.g., “independent variables were age (young, old) and gender (male, female) with separate groups used for each combination of independent variables”] 10. Descriptive statistics used and examples of each from article: 11. Inferential statistics used and examples of each from article: On the second page of each critique: 12. Does the Introduction provide a sound rationale and theoretical background for the research discussed in the article? Justify your answer. 13. Identify the strengths and weakness of the methodology used. Provide possible rationale(s) for why the authors might have used the methods they did. If possible, provide alternative methods of testing the hypothesis. 14. Choose one figure OR table, and summarize its main findings. Provide a photocopy of the figure or table that is summarized. 15. In your opinion, are the conclusions valid and justified? 16. Identify the threats to internal and external validity and write a summary statement as to the “perceived quality” of the study. Does the study represent “sound research” that should be incorporated into our knowledge base or clinical practice? Why or why not?
Pages to are hidden for
"Articles"Please download to view full document