Complex and Pure-Tone Signals in the Evaluation of Hearing-Aid Characteristics

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia G. Stelmachowicz ◽  
Dawna E. Lewis ◽  
Richard C. Seewald ◽  
David B. Hawkins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Maximum Output ◽  
Complex Signals ◽  
Theoretical Issues

In recent years, a number of commercially available systems have been developed to analyze the electroacoustic characteristics of hearing aids. In addition to pure-tone signals, these systems often use a wide variety of complex signals such as broadband noise, clicks, and multitonal complexes. In this paper, a number of practical and theoretical issues concerning the use of pure-tone and complex signals in the evaluation of hearing-aid characteristics are described. The circumstances under which discrepancies in estimated gain and maximum output might occur using these two types of signals are described and the clinical implications of these differences are discussed.

Hearing Aid Maximum Output and Loudness Discomfort: Are Unaided Loudness Measures Needed?

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 504-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol L. Mackersie
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Maximum Output ◽  
Maximum Difference ◽  
Clinical Protocol ◽  
The Real

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical protocol for setting hearing aid maximum output (MPO) in adult users. The protocol consisted of matching prescriptive targets for MPO followed by aided loudness validation and adjustment. Twenty-eight adults fit with multichannel hearing aids during the previous two years were recalled for unaided loudness measures. During the recall visit, unaided frequency-specific loudness discomfort levels were measured for frequencies between 250 and 3000 Hz. These values were converted to real-ear levels by adding individually measured real-ear dial differences. Real-ear saturation responses (RESR) were measured using a 90 dB pure-tone sweep and compared to the real-ear loudness discomfort levels. All participants completed the APHAB Aversiveness scale and Munro-Patel loudness questionnaire. A subset of participants (n = 20) completed the Profile of Aided Loudness.The average RESR-UCL difference was −5.7 dB, and the maximum difference was 15 dB. For all but one participant, the average RESR values (.5–3 kHz) were either less than or no more than 5 dB above the LDLs, and the aided APHAB Aversiveness scores were below the 80th percentile. There were no significant correlations between the scores on the loudness questionnaires and the differences between RESR and LDL values. Results suggest that unaided LDL measures may be redundant if aided loudness validation measures are completed. El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar un protocolo clínico para la graduacón de la salida máxima (MPO) de un auxiliar auditivo para usuarios adultos. El protocolo consistió en unir metas de prescripción para MPO seguido de una validación amplificada y ajustes en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad). Veintiocho adultos que habían sido adaptados con auxiliares auditivos multi-canal durante los dos años anteriores, fueron sometidos a mediciones de sonoridad sin amplificación. Durante la evaluación, se midieron niveles de molestia de frecuencia específica para la sonoridad en las frecuencias entre 250 y 3000 Hz. Estos valores se convirtieron en niveles de oído real adicionando mediciones individuales de las diferencias de dial para oído real. Se midieron respuestas de saturación de oído real (RESR) usando un barrido de tonos puros a 90 dB y comparándolo con los niveles de oído real de molestia en la sonoridad. Todos los participantes completaron la escala APHAB de aversión al sonido y el cuestionario Munro-Patel de sonoridad. Un subgrupo de participantes completó el Perfil de Sonoridad con Amplificación. La diferencia RESR-UCL fue de −5.7 dB, y la diferencia máxima fue de 15 dB. Para todos excepto uno de los participantes, los valores promedio de RESR (0.5–3 kHz) fueron menores o no más de 5 dB por encima del LDL, y los puntajes APHAB de aversión al sonido estuvieron por debajo del percentil 80. No existió una correlación significativa entre los puntajes de los cuestionarios de sonoridad y las diferencias entre los valores del RESR y el LDL. Los resultados sugieren que las medidas no amplificadas del LDL pueden ser redundantes si se completan las medidas de validación de la sonoridad.

Evaluation of Hardwire Personal Assistive Listening Devices

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dempsey ◽  
Mark Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Subjective Evaluations ◽  
Potential Benefits

A large number of personal amplifiers have recently become available commercially. These devices have not been classified as hearing aids by the FDA and are therefore not subject to the FDA rules and regulations governing the sales of hearing aid devices. In this investigation, several of these personal amplifiers were evaluated to determine potential benefits and problems for each device. The devices were evaluated electroacoustically and, also, subjectively by a group of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The results of the electroacoustic evaluation revealed very sharply peaked frequency responses. The subjective evaluations revealed tremendous variability, with some preferences for power and low-frequency amplification. Clinical implications of these results and suggestions for further research are provided.

Effects of CIC Hearing Aids on Auditory Localization by Listeners With Normal Hearing

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. D'Angelo ◽  
Robert S. Bolia ◽  
Pamela J. Mishler ◽  
Linda J. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Auditory Localization ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Significant Decrement ◽  
Localization Performance

An experiment was conducted to determine the effects of completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids on auditory localization performance. Six normal-hearing listeners localized a 750-ms broadband noise from loudspeakers ranging in azimuth from –180° to +180° and in elevation from –75° to +90°. Independent variables included the presence or absence of the hearing aid and the elevation of the source. Dependent measures included azimuth error, elevation error, and the percentage of trials resulting in a front-back confusion. The findings indicate a statistically significant decrement in localization acuity, both in azimuth and elevation, occasioned by the wearing of CIC hearing aids. However, the magni-tude of this decrement was small compared to those typically caused by other ear-canal occlusions, such as earplugs, and would probably not engender mislocalization of real-world sounds.

scholarly journals Towards Auditory Profile-Based Hearing-Aid Fitting: Fitting Rationale and Pilot Evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-21
Author(s):  
Raul Sanchez-Lopez ◽  
Michal Fereczkowski ◽  
Sébastien Santurette ◽  
Torsten Dau ◽  
Tobias Neher
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Pure Tone Audiogram ◽  
Comprehensive Test ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Hearing Abilities

Background—The clinical characterization of hearing deficits for hearing-aid fitting purposes is typically based on the pure-tone audiogram only. In a previous study, a group of hearing-impaired listeners completed a comprehensive test battery that was designed to tap into different dimensions of hearing abilities. A data-driven analysis of the data yielded four clinically relevant patient sub-populations or “auditory profiles”. The purpose of the current study was to propose and pilot-test profile-based hearing-aid settings in order to explore their potential for providing more targeted hearing-aid treatment. Methods—Four candidate hearing-aid settings were developed and evaluated by a subset of the participants tested previously. The evaluation consisted of multi-comparison preference ratings that were carried out in realistic sound scenarios. Results—Listeners belonging to the different auditory profiles showed different patterns of preference for the tested hearing-aid settings that were largely consistent with the expectations. Conclusions—The results of this pilot evaluation support further investigations into stratified, profile-based hearing-aid fitting with wearable hearing aids.

Prediction of Most Comfortable Loudness Levels in Hearing Aid Evaluation

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irving Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Comfortable Loudness ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pure Tone Threshold

Most comfortable loudness levels (MCLs) are used to determine the gain required in hearing aids. The relationship between MCL and the midpoint between pure-tone threshold and threshold of discomfort was evaluated to see if the MCL could be predicted from the midpoint values. The range of differences between midpoint and MCL precluded making such predictions.

Some Effects of FM-System Coupling on Hearing Aid Characteristics

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins ◽  
Donald J. Schum
Keyword(s):  
Frequency Response ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Classroom Environment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Harmonic Distortion ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Volume Control ◽  
Input Output ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Control Wheel

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.

scholarly journals Speech Perception and Information-Carrying Capacity for Hearing Aid Users of Different Ages

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 16-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Hoppe ◽  
Thomas Hocke ◽  
Alexander Müller ◽  
Anne Hast
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Older Subjects

Hearing impairment in the elderly is usually treated with conventional hearing aids; however, a large number of older people do not achieve sufficient speech recognition with hearing aids. The aim of the study was to describe speech perception with hearing aids in comparison to pure-tone hearing loss and maximum speech recognition scores for phonemically balanced words. Data from 392 hearing aid users with different degrees of hearing loss were evaluated retrospectively. In particular, pure-tone thresholds, the maximum monosyllabic word score, and the monosyllabic word score in quiet at conversational level with a hearing aid were analysed. The results showed that speech perception scores decline with increasing age. Even when corrected for pure-tone hearing loss, a significant decline in speech recognition scores after the age of 80 years was observed. Regarding the maximum monosyllabic word score, the effect is smaller but still observable; thus, speech recognition with hearing aids is significantly lower for older subjects. This can be attributed partially to the reduction of the information-carrying capacity in this group.

Prediction of Asymptotic Threshold Shift Caused by Hearing Aid Use

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1450-1458 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Macrae
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Threshold Shift ◽  
Temporary Threshold Shift ◽  
High Input ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Sound Levels ◽  
Ambient Sound ◽  
Ambient Levels

This study used a well-verified mathematical model to predict asymptotic temporary threshold shift (ATS) caused by hearing aid use. The model determined the amounts of ATS to be expected if real ear insertion gains (REIGs) recommended by the current National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) procedure are used. It also determined the consequences of use of excess REIG and of high input levels to hearing aids. If recommended REIGs are used and input levels are normal (average A-weighted input levels of about 61 dB SPL), ATS is unlikely to occur for clients who have typical audiograms with three-frequency average pure-tone thresholds (PTAs) less than 60 dB HL. For people with PTAs greater than 60 dB HL, small amounts of ATS can be expected to occur during hearing aid use, but these amounts of ATS are safe, that is, unlikely to be associated with permanent threshold shift (PTS) for individuals with all PTAs except those greater than about 100 dB HL. If REIGs are 15 dB greater than those recommended, the amounts of ATS will be unsafe for people with PTAs greater than about 80 dB HL. It appears unwise for clients who have this degree of hearing loss to use excess REIG. The use of excess REIG in high ambient levels of sound (average A-weighted input levels of about 75 dB SPL) is likely to cause PTS for hearing aid users with PTAs of about 50 dB HL or greater. Clients who prefer to use excess REIG should therefore avoid high ambient sound levels. The amount of amplification required for people with PTAs greater than about 100 dB HL is likely to cause PTS and is therefore inherently unsafe.

scholarly journals High-Frequency Audibility: The Effects of Audiometric Configuration, Stimulus Type, and Device

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 128-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Kimlinger ◽  
Ryan McCreery ◽  
Dawna Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Average Maximum ◽  
Audible Frequency ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: For the last decade, the importance of providing amplification up to 9–10 kHz has been supported by multiple studies involving children and adults. The extent to which a listener with hearing loss can benefit from bandwidth expansion is dependent on the audibility of high-frequency cues. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) devised a standard method for measuring and reporting hearing aid bandwidth for quality-control purposes. However, ANSI bandwidth measurements were never intended to reflect the true frequency range that is audible for a speech stimulus for a person with hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the maximum audible frequency of conventional hearing aids using a speech signal as the input through the hearing aid microphone for different degrees of hearing loss, (2) examine how the maximum audible frequency changes when the input stimulus is presented through hearing assistance technology (HAT) systems with cross-coupling of manufacturers' transmitters and receivers, and (3) evaluate how the maximum audible frequency compares with the upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth measure. Research Design: Eight behind-the-ear hearing aids from five hearing aid manufacturers were selected based on a range of ANSI bandwidth upper frequency limits. Three audiometric configurations with varied degrees of high-frequency hearing loss were programmed into each hearing aid. Hearing aid responses were measured with the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS), broadband noise, and a short speech token (/asa/) as stimuli presented through a loudspeaker. HAT devices from three manufacturers were used to create five HAT scenarios. These instruments were coupled to the hearing aid programmed for the audiogram that provided the highest maximum audible frequency in the hearing aid analysis. The response from each HAT scenario was obtained using the same three stimuli as during the hearing aid analysis. Study Sample: All measurements were collected in an audiometric sound booth on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR). Data Collection and Analysis: A custom computer program was used to record responses from KEMAR. Maximum audible frequency was defined as the highest point where the Long-Term Average Speech Spectrum (LTASS) intersected the audiogram. Results: The average maximum audible frequency measured through KEMAR ranged from 3.5 kHz to beyond 8 kHz and varied significantly across devices, audiograms, and stimuli. The specified upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth was not predictive of the maximum audible frequency across conditions. For most HAT systems, the maximum audible frequency for the hearing aid plus HAT condition was equivalent to the hearing aid for the same measurement configuration. In some cases, however, the HAT system imposed a lower maximum audible frequency than the hearing aid–only condition. Conclusions: The maximum audible frequency of behind-the-ear hearing aids is dependent on the degree of hearing loss, amplification device, and stimulus input. Estimating the maximum audible frequency by estimating the frequency where the speech spectrum intersects the audiogram in the high frequencies can assist clinicians in making decisions about which device or configuration of devices provides the greatest access to high-frequency information, as well as whether frequency-lowering technology should be used.

scholarly journals Mobile Hearing Aid

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 649-651
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Hearing Disability ◽  
Impaired People ◽  
Android App

This is about developing an android app for replicating the mechanism of hearing aid machine. Majority of the Hearing Impaired people cannot afford hearing aids due to higher cost of the Instruments. Similarly Audiometry Test for assessing the Deafness levels are also costly. Affordable Smartphone are available with majority of the Hearing Impaired people in Indian. So, we propose a Mobile Application which consists of the following three Features. This APP enables Ear phones of Phone to function as Hearing Aid for people with hearing disability. This APP converts speech to Text so that Hearing impaired people can know what other people are talking without using SIGN Language. This APP provides Pure-Tone AudiometryTest to assess level of Hearing Loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document