A Clinical Perspective on Cochlear Dead Regions: Intelligibility of Speech and Subjective Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 600-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill E. Preminger ◽  
Ryan Carpenter ◽  
Craig H. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Perspective ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Cochlear Dead Regions ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Using the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test, 49 subjects with at least two pure-tone thresholds per ear greater than 50 dB HL and none greater than 80 dB HL were evaluated for the presence or absence of dead regions. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the prevalence of cochlear dead regions in this clinical population, (2) measure whether listeners with dead regions performed differently than listeners without dead regions on a speech intelligibility in noise test, and (3) determine whether cochlear dead regions are associated with reduced subjective hearing aid performance. The results showed that (1) twenty-nine percent of the subjects tested positive for dead regions, (2) listeners with dead regions had poorer sentence understanding in noise than listeners without dead regions and (3) listeners with dead regions perceived poorer subjective hearing aid performance in listening environments with reverberation or background noise as compared to those without dead regions.

scholarly journals Temporal fine structure influences voicing confusions for consonant identification in multi-talker babble

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibha Viswanathan ◽  
Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham ◽  
Michael G. Heinz
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
Vast Literature ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Intact Condition ◽  
Speech Content

To understand the mechanisms of speech perception in everyday listening environments, it is important to elucidate the relative contributions of different acoustics cues in transmitting phonetic content. Previous studies suggest that the energy envelopes of speech convey most speech content, while the temporal fine structure (TFS) can aid in segregating target speech from background noise. Despite the vast literature on TFS and speech intelligibility, the role of TFS in conveying additional speech content over what envelopes convey in complex acoustic scenes is poorly understood. The present study addresses this question using online psychophysical experiments to measure consonant identification in multi-talker babble for intelligibility-matched intact and 64-channel envelope-vocoded stimuli. Consonant confusion patterns revealed that listeners had a greater tendency in the vocoded (versus intact) condition to be biased towards reporting that they heard an unvoiced consonant, despite envelope and place cues being largely preserved. This result was replicated when babble instances were varied across independent experiments, suggesting that TFS conveys important voicing cues over what envelopes convey in multi-talker babble, a masker that is ubiquitous in everyday environments. This finding has implications for assistive listening devices that do not currently provide TFS cues, such as cochlear implants.

scholarly journals The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Mariya Yu. Boboshko ◽  
Irina P. Berdnikova ◽  
Natalya V. Maltzeva
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives -to determine the normative data of sentence speech intelligibility in a free sound field and to estimate the applicability of the Russian Matrix Sentence test (RuMatrix) for assessment of the hearing aid fitting benefit. Material and methods. 10 people with normal hearing and 28 users of hearing aids with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were involved in the study. RuMatrix test both in quiet and in noise was performed in a free sound field. All patients filled in the COSI questionnaire. Results. The hearing impaired patients were divided into two subgroups: the 1st with high and the 2nd with low hearing aid benefit, according to the COSI questionnaire. In the 1st subgroup, the threshold for the sentence intelligibility in quiet was 34.9 ± 6.4 dB SPL, and in noise -3.3 ± 1.4 dB SNR, in the 2nd subgroup 41.7 ± 11.5 dB SPL and 0.15 ± 3.45 dB SNR, respectively. The significant difference between the data of both subgroups and the norm was registered (p

Evaluation of an Articulation-Index Based Model for Predicting the Effects of Adaptive Frequency Response Hearing Aids

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 676-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Dianne J. Van Tasell
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Frequency Response ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Articulation Index ◽  
Intelligibility Ratings ◽  
High Pass

The Articulation Index (AI) was used to evaluate an “adaptive frequency response” (AFR) hearing aid with amplification characteristics that automatically change to become more high-pass with increasing levels of background noise. Speech intelligibility ratings of connected discourse by normal-hearing subjects were predicted well by an empirically derived AI transfer function. That transfer function was used to predict aided speech intelligibility ratings by 12 hearing-impaired subjects wearing a master hearing aid with the Argosy Manhattan Circuit enabled (AFR-on) or disabled (AFR-off). For all subjects, the AI predicted no improvements in speech intelligibility for the AFR-on versus AFR-off condition, and no significant improvements in rated intelligibility were observed. The ability of the AI to predict aided speech intelligibility varied across subjects. However, ratings from every hearing-impaired subject were related monotonically to AI. Therefore, AI calculations may be used to predict relative—but not absolute—levels of speech intelligibility produced under different amplification conditions.

scholarly journals Electroacoustic assessment of wireless remote microphone systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haniyeh Salehi ◽  
Vijay Parsa ◽  
Paula Folkeard
Keyword(s):  
Acoustic Signal ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Other ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Significant Interest ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
Acoustic Conditions

Wireless remote microphones (RMs) transmit the desired acoustic signal to the hearing aid (HA) and facilitate enhanced listening in challenging environments. Fitting and verification of RMs, and benchmarking the relative performance of different RM devices in varied acoustic environments are of significant interest to Audiologists and RM developers. This paper investigates the application of instrumental speech intelligibility and quality metrics for characterizing the RM performance in two acoustic environments with varying amounts of background noise and reverberation. In both environments, two head and torso simulators (HATS) were placed 2 m apart, where one HATS served as the talker and the other served as the listener. Four RM systems were interfaced separately with a HA programmed to match the prescriptive targets for the N4 standard audiogram and placed on the listener HATS. The HA output in varied acoustic conditions was recorded and analyzed offline through computational models predicting speech intelligibility and quality. Results showed performance differences among the four RMs in the presence of noise and/or reverberation, with one RM exhibiting significantly better performance. Clinical implications and applications of these results are discussed.

The Relationship between the Acceptance of Noise and Acoustic Environments in Young Adults with Normal Hearing: A Pilot Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 584-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Franklin ◽  
Letitia J. White ◽  
Thomas C. Franklin ◽  
Laura Smith-Olinde
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
Different Characteristics

Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) indicates how much background noise a listener is willing to accept while listening to speech. The clinical impact and application of the ANL measure is as a predictor of hearing-aid use. The ANL may also correlate with the percentage of time spent in different listening environments (i.e., quiet, noisy, noisy with speech present, etc). Information retrieved from data logging could confirm this relationship. Data logging, using sound scene analysis, is a method of monitoring the different characteristics of the listening environments that a hearing-aid user experiences during a period. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the ANL procedure reflects the proportion of time a person spends in different acoustic environments. Research Design: This was a descriptive quasi-experimental design to collect pilot data in which participants were asked to maintain their regular, daily activities while wearing a data-logging device. Study Sample: After completing the ANL measurement, 29 normal-hearing listeners were provided a data-logging device and were instructed on its proper use. Data Collection/Analysis: ANL measures were obtained along with the percentage of time participants spent in listening environments classified as quiet, speech-in-quiet, speech-in-noise, and noise via a data-logging device. Results: An analysis of variance using a general linear model indicated that listeners with low ANL values spent more time in acoustic environments in which background noise was present than did those with high ANL values; the ANL data did not indicate differences in how much time listeners spent in environments of differing intensities. Conclusions: To some degree, the ANL is reflective of the acoustic environments and the amount of noise that the listener is willing to accept; data logging illustrates the acoustic environments in which the listener was present. Clinical implications include, but are not limited to, decisions in patient care regarding the need for additional counseling and/or the use of digital noise reduction and directional microphone technology.

scholarly journals Improving Speech Understanding and Monitoring Health with Hearing Aids Using Artificial Intelligence and Embedded Sensors

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 295-308
Author(s):  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Achintya K. Bhowmik
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Embedded Sensors ◽  
Health And Wellness ◽  
Speech Understanding

AbstractThis article details ways that machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies are being integrated in modern hearing aids to improve speech understanding in background noise and provide a gateway to overall health and wellness. Discussion focuses on how Starkey incorporates automatic and user-driven optimization of speech intelligibility with onboard hearing aid signal processing and machine learning algorithms, smartphone-based deep neural network processing, and wireless hearing aid accessories. The article will conclude with a review of health and wellness tracking capabilities that are enabled by embedded sensors and artificial intelligence.

Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level and Individual Characteristics on Listener Outcome Measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Jennifer Hausladen ◽  
Micaela Capps ◽  
Mary Alice Cox
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Science Center ◽  
Large Group ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Technology Level

Purpose The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures. In addition, we aimed to determine if individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and the demands of the listening environment impacted performance and preference. Method A repeated-measures, single-blinded research design was utilized. Twenty-four adults recruited by mail from The University of Tennessee Health Science Center Audiology Clinic participated in this experiment (15 men and nine women). Participants completed two 2-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed as basic or premium technology levels. A data-logging feature, Log It All (LIA), quantified the demands of the listening environment. At the end of each trial, outcome measures were obtained using Pascoe's High-Frequency Word List, the Hearing in Noise Test, the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test, the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing short form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Results Results for ANL, satisfaction in large groups, and LIA total coverage were significantly improved for the premium devices. Participants who preferred the premium devices received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL and the speech in small group and speech in large group satisfaction ratings, whereas participants who preferred the basic devices did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Participants in more demanding listening environments received significant improvement with premium devices on the ANL, whereas participants in less demanding listening environments did not receive significant improvement with premium devices on any outcome measure. Conclusions Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance and listening demands may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for a given patient.

What Is Important for Hearing Aid Satisfaction? Application of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Model

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (07) ◽  
pp. 644-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Meyer ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Asad Khan ◽  
David Walker
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Consumer Satisfaction ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Expected Performance ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Expectancy Disconfirmation ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Between 68.1–89.5% of clients report that they are satisfied with their hearing aids. Two variables that are thought to contribute to dissatisfaction with hearing aids are product performance, and a mismatch between performance and client prefitting expectations about hearing-aid performance (i.e., disconfirmation). A focus on variables related to satisfaction is relevant to improving hearing rehabilitation services. Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if measures of hearing-aid performance and disconfirmation, specifically related to hearing ability and hearing-aid problems, were associated with overall hearing-aid satisfaction among a sample of hearing-aid users. Research Design: A retrospective research design was employed. Study Sample: A total of 123 individuals participated in the study (57% male; mean age: 72 yr). All participants owned hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: A personal details questionnaire and the Profile of Hearing Aid Consumer Satisfaction questionnaire (Wong et al, 2009) were completed by participants, 3–12 mo after they obtained hearing aids. Overall hearing-aid satisfaction was a dichotomized variable (satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction); therefore, logistic regression modeling was applied to the data to determine which variables were associated with overall hearing-aid satisfaction. Results: Sixty-one percent of the sample reported that they were satisfied with their hearing aids. Hearing-aid satisfaction was associated with the ability to hear with hearing aids and better-than-expected performance in this same area; fewer hearing-aid problems; and fewer problems with hearing-aid manipulation, hearing-aid appearance, and wearer discomfort than were anticipated before hearing-aid fitting. Conclusions: It is recommended that to improve hearing-aid satisfaction, clinicians should ensure optimal hearing-aid benefit in the listening situations that the person with hearing impairment most wants to hear better; reduce the likelihood of hearing-aid problems occurring; and promote positive disconfirmation (performance exceeds expectations) with respect to both hearing ability and hearing-aid performance through the education of clients about the likely benefits of hearing aids in a variety of listening environments, and the potential problems they could face with hearing-aid manipulation and wearer discomfort.

scholarly journals A Personal Sound Amplification Product Compared to a Basic Hearing Aid for Speech Intelligibility in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-98
Author(s):  
Ji Eun Choi ◽  
Jinryoul Kim ◽  
Sung Hoon Yoon ◽  
Sung Hwa Hong ◽  
Il Joon Moon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Quality ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Amplification Product ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sound Amplification

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare functional hearing with the use of a personal sound amplification product (PSAP) or a basic hearing aid (HA) among sensorineural hearing impaired listeners.Subjects and Methods: Nineteen participants with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) (26-55 dB HL; pure-tone average, 0.5-4 kHz) were prospectively included. No participants had prior experience with HAs or PSAPs. Audiograms, speech intelligibility in both quiet and noisy environments, speech quality, and preference were assessed in three different listening conditions: unaided, with the HA, and with the PSAP. Results: The use of PSAP was associated with significant improvement in pure-tone thresholds at 1, 2, and 4 kHz compared to the unaided condition (all <i>p</i> <0.01). In the quiet environment, speech intelligibility was significantly improved after wearing a PSAP compared to the unaided condition (<i>p</i> <0.001), and this improvement was better than the result obtained with the HA. The PSAP also demonstrated similar improvement in the most comfortable levels compared to those obtained with the HA (<i>p</i> <0.05). However, there was no significant improvement of speech intelligibility in a noisy environment when wearing the PSAP (<i>p</i> =0.160). There was no significant difference in the reported speech quality produced by either device or in participant preference for the PSAP or HA. Conclusions: The current result suggests that PSAPs provide considerable benefits to speech intelligibility in a quiet environment and can be a good alternative to compensate for mild-to-moderate SNHL.

Short-Term and Long-Term Hearing Aid Benefit and User Satisfaction: A Comparison between Two Fitting Protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document