Comparison of calculated, measured and self-assessed intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-aid users

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lennart Magnusson ◽  
Mia Karlsson ◽  
Anders Ringdahl ◽  
Björn Israelsson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech In Noise

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

The Effects of Varying Directional Bandwidth in Hearing Aid Users' Preference and Speech-in-Noise Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Adriana Goyette ◽  
Jeff Crukley ◽  
Jason Galster
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Internal Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise

Purpose Directional microphone systems are typically used to improve hearing aid users' understanding of speech in noise. However, directional microphones also increase internal hearing aid noise. The purpose of this study was to investigate how varying directional microphone bandwidth affected listening preference and speech-in-noise performance. Method Ten participants with normal hearing and 10 participants with hearing impairment compared internal noise levels between hearing aid memories with 4 different microphone modes: omnidirectional, full directional, high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 900 Hz, and high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 2000 Hz. Speech-in-noise performance was measured with each memory for the participants with hearing impairment. Results Participants with normal hearing preferred memories with less directional bandwidth. Participants with hearing impairment also tended to prefer the memories with less directional bandwidth. However, the majority of participants with hearing impairment did not indicate a preference between omnidirectional and directional above 2000 Hz memories. Average hearing-in-noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth. Conclusions Most participants preferred memories with less directional bandwidth in quiet. Participants with hearing impairment indicated no difference in preference between directional above 2000 Hz and the omnidirectional memories. Speech recognition in noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth.

Systematic Evaluation of Self-Reported Hearing Ability in Six Dimensions Before and After a Hearing Aid Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (11) ◽  
pp. 4150-4164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge de Ronde-Brons ◽  
Wim Soede ◽  
Wouter Dreschler
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Sum Score ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Fitting In ◽  
Structured Approach

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the application of a modified version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap to inventory self-reported hearing difficulties pre and post hearing aid fitting in 6 dimensions: detection, speech in silence, speech in noise, localization, discrimination, and noise tolerance. Method Questionnaires pre and post hearing aid fitting were collected during regular practice of hearing aid provision. Data of 740 subjects are presented; 337 already used hearing aids, and 403 were new users. Results Group-averaged scores improved due to hearing aid fitting for all 6 dimensions. Based on a criterion previously defined for the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap questionnaire, 66% of subjects had a significant individual improvement in sum score. Experienced users showed lower improvement in scores, whereas their aided prescores were, on average, not better than the (unaided) score of 1st users. Conclusions The questionnaire can be applied as a structured approach to inventory hearing problems in 6 dimensions prior to hearing aid fitting and to systematically evaluate the effects of hearing aid fitting after a trial period. The data presented here can serve as normative data for comparison of individual subjects in clinical practice.

Fitting Noise Management Signal Processing Applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Verification Protocols

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (03) ◽  
pp. 237-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Scollie ◽  
Charla Levy ◽  
Nazanin Pourmand ◽  
Parvaneh Abbasalipour ◽  
Marlene Bagatto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Verification Systems ◽  
Clinical Verification ◽  
Noise Management

Background: Although guidelines for fitting hearing aids for children are well developed and have strong basis in evidence, specific protocols for fitting and verifying some technologies are not always available. One such technology is noise management in children’s hearing aids. Children are frequently in high-level and/or noisy environments, and many options for noise management exist in modern hearing aids. Verification protocols are needed to define specific test signals and levels for use in clinical practice. Purpose: This work aims to (1) describe the variation in different brands of noise reduction processors in hearing aids and the verification of these processors and (2) determine whether these differences are perceived by 13 children who have hearing loss. Finally, we aimed to develop a verification protocol for use in pediatric clinical practice. Study Sample: A set of hearing aids was tested using both clinically available test systems and a reference system, so that the impacts of noise reduction signal processing in hearing aids could be characterized for speech in a variety of background noises. A second set of hearing aids was tested across a range of audiograms and across two clinical verification systems to characterize the variance in clinical verification measurements. Finally, a set of hearing aid recordings that varied by type of noise reduction was rated for sound quality by children with hearing loss. Results: Significant variation across makes and models of hearing aids was observed in both the speed of noise reduction activation and the magnitude of noise reduction. Reference measures indicate that noise-only testing may overestimate noise reduction magnitude compared to speech-in-noise testing. Variation across clinical test signals was also observed, indicating that some test signals may be more successful than others for characterization of hearing aid noise reduction. Children provided different sound quality ratings across hearing aids, and for one hearing aid rated the sound quality as higher with the noise reduction system activated. Conclusions: Implications for clinical verification systems may be that greater standardization and the use of speech-in-noise test signals may improve the quality and consistency of noise reduction verification cross clinics. A suggested clinical protocol for verification of noise management in children’s hearing aids is suggested.

Danish reading span data from 283 hearing-aid users, including a sub-group analysis of their relationship to speech-in-noise performance

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline Borch Petersen ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Martin D. Vestergaard ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Reading Span ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Speech In Noise

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document