Electroacoustic Performance Characteristics of FM Auditory Trainers

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry A. Freeman ◽  
J. Stephen Sinclair ◽  
Donald E. Riggs

This study investigated the electroacoustic performance characteristics of FM auditory trainers. Experiment one was designed to answer two interrelated questions. First, what are the differences in the electroacoustic performance of FM auditory trainers between the FM and EM modes? Second, is the method for evaluating electroacoustic performance of hearing aids also appropriate for assessing the response characteristics of FM auditory trainers? The purpose of the second experiment was to assess the effect that taper of the volume control dial had on performance of these trainers. The study found that, with certain cautions, the ANSI S3.22-1976 procedures for assessing a hearing aid could be applied to the measurement of FM trainers. There were performance differences, however, between the auditory trainers when set to the FM and EM transmission modes. Thus, the electroacoustic assessment of FM units in both the EM and FM modes of operation is needed to assess their performance fully.

1983 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Curtis Tannahill

Two hearing aids and three telephone receivers were used to compare electroacoustic and word intelligibility data for hearing aid microphone reception versus telephone/telephone and telephone/telecoil reception. Measurements included test reference position gain and frequency response characteristics (Experiment 1) and word intelligibility scores (Experiment 2). The results indicated that performance was similar for hearing aid microphone reception and telephone/telephone reception. Telephone/ telecoil performance varied, depending on which telephone receiver was involved, but was poorer than hearing aid microphone performance. Recommendations were made concerning the selection of hearing aids and the management of hearing aid users relative to telephone/telecoil communication.


1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne J. Van Tasell ◽  
Deborah P. Landin

Personally sized inductance loops (mini-loops) now are available for use with an FM classroom amplification system and the student's personal ear-level hearing aid. Frequency response characteristics of five commercially-available hearing aids were assessed 1) using hearing aid test equipment available in most audiology clinics, with the hearing aid on microphone setting and 2) in a public school classroom, with the hearing aid on telecoil setting and operating with an FM mini-loop system. Clinic and classroom characteristics of the conventional FM receiver-insert earphone auditory trainers also were assessed. Results showed that the personal hearing aids' classroom performance could not be predicted from their clinic performance. Results also showed that gain provided by the environmental microphone circuit of the FM receiver-insert earphone units was uniformly higher than that provided by the teacher-microphone signal route.


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 758-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Gustav Mueller ◽  
Benjamin W.Y. Hornsby ◽  
Jennifer E. Weber

Background: While there have been many studies of real-world preferred hearing aid gain, few data are available from participants using hearing aids with today's special features activated. Moreover, only limited data have been collected regarding preferred gain for individuals using trainable hearing aids. Purpose: To determine whether real-world preferred hearing aid gain with trainable modern hearing aids is in agreement with previous work in this area, and to determine whether the starting programmed gain setting influences preferred gain outcome. Research Design: An experimental crossover study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Following initial treatment, each subject crossed to the opposite group and experienced that treatment. Study Sample: Twenty-two adults with downward sloping sensorineural hearing loss served as participants (mean age 64.5; 16 males, 6 females). All were experienced users of bilateral amplification. Intervention: Using a crossover design, participants were fitted to two different prescriptive gain conditions: VC (volume control) start-up 6 dB above NAL-NL1 (National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 1) target or VC start-up 6 dB below NAL-NL1 target. The hearing aids were used in a 10 to 14 day field trial for each condition, and using the VC, the participants could “train” the overall hearing aid gain to their preferred level. During the field trial, daily hearing aid use was logged, as well as the listening situations experienced by the listeners based on the hearing instrument's acoustic scene analysis. The participants completed a questionnaire at the start and end of each field trial in which they rated loudness perceptions and their satisfaction with aided loudness levels. Results: Because several participants potentially experienced floor or ceiling effects for the range of trainable gain, the majority of the statistical analysis was conducted using 12 of the 22 participants. For both VC-start conditions, the trained preferred gain differed significantly from the NAL-NL1 prescriptive targets. More importantly, the initial start-up gain significantly influenced the trained gain; the mean preferred gain for the +6 dB start condition was approximately 9 dB higher than the preferred gain for the −6 dB start condition, and this difference was statistically significant (p < .001). Partial eta squared (η2) = 0.919, which is a large effect size.Deviation from the NAL-NL1 target was not significantly influenced by the time spent in different listening environments, amount of hearing aid use during the trial period, or amount of hearing loss. Questionnaire data showed more appropriate ratings for loudness and higher satisfaction with loudness for the 6 dB below target VC-start condition. Conclusions: When trainable hearing aids are used, the initial programmed gain of hearing instruments can influence preferred gain in the real world.


1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faye N. Erickson ◽  
Dianne J. Van Tasell

Three hearing aid manufacturers provided custom full-shell in-the-ear hearing aids for each of 3 hearing-impaired subjects. Each manufacturer was instructed that the hearing aids should provide the maximum possible acoustic gain within the limits of hearing aid shell size and available components. Coupler gain, insertion gain, and functional gain were measured for each hearing aid. Gain measures were made with the volume control at either the full-on setting or the highest setting possible before the onset of acoustical feedback. Full-on coupler gain curves were similar across all nine hearing aids. Individual differences in concha/ear canal size and in the fit of the hearing aids produced substantial variance in insertion gain across hearing aids. Peak insertion gain varied from 41 to 58 dB. If 10 dB reserve gain is allowed, the range of estimated peak use gain from these maximum-gain in-the-ear hearing aids is 31–48 dB.


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 158-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W.Y. Hornsby ◽  
H. Gustav Mueller

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the consistency and reliability of user adjustments to hearing aid gain and the resulting effects on speech understanding. Sixteen bilaterally aided individuals with hearing loss adjusted their hearing aid gain to optimize listening comfort and speech clarity while listening to speech in quiet and noisy backgrounds. Following these adjustments, participants readjusted their aids to optimize clarity and comfort while listening to speech in quiet. These final gain settings were recorded and compared to those provided by NAL-NL1 prescriptive targets. In addition, speech understanding was tested with the hearing aids set at target and user gain settings. Performance differences between the gain settings were then assessed.Study results revealed that although some listeners preferred more or less gain than prescribed, on average, user and prescribed gain settings were similar in both ears. Some individuals, however, made gain adjustments between ears resulting in "gain mismatches." These "mismatches" were often inconsistent across trials suggesting that these adjustments were unreliable. Speech testing results, however, showed no significant difference across the different gain settings suggesting that the gain deviations introduced in this study were not large enough to significantly affect speech understanding. El propósito del actual estudio fue evaluar la consistencia y la confiabilidad de los ajustes ganancia del auxiliar auditivo por parte del usuario, en cuanto a mejorar la comprensión del lenguaje. Dieciséis individuos hipoacúsicos con amplificación bilateral ajustaron la ganancia de sus auxiliares auditivos para optimizar la comodidad al escuchar y la claridad del lenguaje mientras escuchaban lenguaje en ambientes silenciosos y ruidosos. Después de estos ajustes, los participantes reajustaron sus auxiliares para optimizar la claridad y la comodidad al escuchar lenguaje en silencio. Estos ajustes finales de ganancia fueron registrados y comparados a aquellos indicados por las metas de prescripción del NAL-NL1. Además, se evaluó la comprensión del lenguaje con los auxiliares auditivos graduados en el nivel meta y en el nivel escogido por el usuario. Entonces se evaluaron las diferencias de desempeño entre dichos ajustes de ganancia.El estudio reveló que aunque algunos sujetos prefirieron más o menos ganancia de la prescrita, en promedio, los ajustes de ganancia del usuario y los prescritos fueron similares en ambos oídos. Algunos individuos, sin embargo, realizaron ajustes de ganancia entre sus dos oídos que resultaron en "desajustes de ganancia". Estos "desajustes" fueron a menudo inconsistentes en los diferentes ensayos sugiriendo que eran no confiables. Los resultados de las pruebas de lenguaje, sin embargo, no mostraron diferencias significativas entre los diferentes ajustes de ganancia, sugiriendo que las desviaciones de ganancia introducidas en este estudio no fueron lo suficientemente grandes para afectar significativamente la comprensión del lenguaje.


1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins ◽  
Donald J. Schum

A variety of electroacoustic characteristics was measured on four hearing aids and then repeated with the hearing aids connected to two different FM systems via three coupling methods: direct input, neck loop, and silhouette inductor. The measurements included frequency response, harmonic distortion, noise levels, input-output functions, and FM receiver volume control wheel taper curves. Omnidirectional and directional FM microphones were compared in a classroom environment, and minor changes in hearing aid-silhouette coupling were investigated. Large differences were found in some frequency response comparisons, with no single coupling method providing consistently better agreement with the hearing aid alone response. With the exception of the silhouette inductor, distortion and noise levels were similar for the hearing aids and FM-hearing aid combinations. Differences in the input-output functions between the hearing aids and the FM systems were observed. Some FM-hearing aid combinations produced very nonlinear FM receiver volume control wheel taper curves. The output level of a broadband noise in a classroom was reduced when a directional FM microphone was compared to the omnidirectional version. The results indicate that it cannot be assumed that the electroacoustic characteristics of a personal hearing aid are preserved when it is connected to an FM system.


CoDAS ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrícia Danieli Campos ◽  
Amanda Bozza ◽  
Deborah Viviane Ferrari

Purpose: To evaluate hearing aid handling skills for new and experienced users and to assess if such skills influence user's benefit and satisfaction. Methods: Seventy four participants (mean age of 70.43), experienced (n=37) or new hearing aid users (n=37) performed the tasks of "Practical Hearing Aid Skills Test" (PHAST), which were scored on a five-point Likert scale - higher scores indicate better hearing aid handling skills. Experienced users answered the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the hearing aid benefit for handicap reduction was calculated by the hearing handicap inventory (HHIA/HHIE). Results: Medians for PHAST total scores of 79 and 71% were obtained for experienced and new users, respectively - there were no significant difference between groups. Lower PHAST scores were observed for the tasks of volume control manipulation and telephone usage. Moderate correlations were obtained between IOI benefit and quality of life items and the PHAST scores. There was no correlation between the results of PHAST and demographic data of the participants. Conclusion: There was no difference in handling skills between new and experienced hearing aid users. Handling skills affected hearing aid benefit.


1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Laurel Christensen ◽  
Tara Thomas ◽  
Fred H. Bess ◽  
Andrea Hedley-Williams ◽  
...  

The aided performance and benefit achieved with linear and two-channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) in-the-canal (ITC) hearing aids were established in 55 individuals. Study participants had been wearing either linear or adaptive-frequency-response (Bass Increase at Low Levels, BILL) ITC hearing aids for approximately one year before participation in this study. Outcome measures included aided performance and objective benefit in quiet and noise at a variety of speech levels (50, 60, and 75 dB SPL), at various levels of babble background (quiet, signal-to-babble ratios of +5 and +10 dB), and for various types of test materials (monosyllabic words and sentences in connected speech). Several subjective measures of aided performance (sound-quality judgments and magnitude estimates of listening effort) and relative benefit (improvement in listening effort and the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI) were also obtained. Finally, self-report measures of hearing-aid use were also obtained using daily logs. Participants completed all outcome measures for the linear ITC hearing aids first, following 2 months of usage, and then repeated all outcome measures for the WDRC instruments after a subsequent 2-month period of use. In general, although both types of hearing aids demonstrated significant benefit, the results indicated that the WDRC instruments were superior to the linear devices for many of the outcome measures. This tended to be the case most frequently when low speech levels were used. Many of the performance differences between devices most likely can be ascribed to differences in gain, and prescriptive approaches (DSL[i/o] vs. NAL-R), for the fixed volume control testing performed in this study.


1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Laura L. Holum-Hardegen ◽  
Joanne M. Crowley ◽  
Daniel M. Schwartz ◽  
Dennis L. Williams

Comparative hearing aid evaluations using NU-6 monosyllabic word lists were administered to adults with predominately high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairments who were randomly assigned to one of two experiments. In the first, three instruments were used that were electroacoustically similar and appropriate to the patients' hearing losses. In the second, the three hearing aids employed were electroacoustically quite different. Following an initial comparative hearing aid evaluation, the patients used the instruments during a trial-use week after which they ranked the aids in terms of benefit provided in daily communication. Following the trial-use week, the comparative hearing aid evaluation was repeated. The results suggest that significant interaid performance differences on the hearing aid evaluation are not likely to occur very often when the aids being evaluated are relatively homogeneous electroacoustically. In contrast, when electroacoustically heterogeneous instruments are evaluated, significant performance differences may occur frequently. Under such circumstance, however, the same instrument(s) would likely provide the best performance to most patients. The results further suggest that the reliability of standard monosyllabic word lists may not be adequate to detect typical interaid differences that occur in a comparative hearing aid evaluation and that the performance hierarchy is likely to change as the patient adjusts amplification. Finally, the comparative hearing aid evaluation will not be a good predictor of success in daily communication unless relatively large performance differences exist among the instruments.


1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 638-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Green ◽  
Mark Ross

Sound-field Bekesy audiograms were obtained from one experienced hearing-impaired subject wearing an ear-level hearing aid with a conventional earmold and a nonoccluding CROS-type earmold. Comparisons were made to determine the effects of the two different types of earmolds as well as different tubing lengths for nonoccluding CROS-type earmolds. Findings indicate: (1) A nonoccluding CROS-type earmold alters the frequency response characteristics of a hearing aid by markedly reducing the amplification for the low frequencies. (2) The length of tubing has a minor effect compared with that caused by the nonoccluding CROS ear coupler. (3) Sound-field Bekesy audiometry is a reliable and valid tool for assessing changes in the amplifying characteristics of hearing aids.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document