Directional/omni-directional hearing aid microphone and housing

2004 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Alex Durbut ◽  
Gerald D. Richels
2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1299-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Beechey ◽  
Jörg M. Buchholz ◽  
Gitte Keidser

Objectives This study investigates the hypothesis that hearing aid amplification reduces effort within conversation for both hearing aid wearers and their communication partners. Levels of effort, in the form of speech production modifications, required to maintain successful spoken communication in a range of acoustic environments are compared to earlier reported results measured in unaided conversation conditions. Design Fifteen young adult normal-hearing participants and 15 older adult hearing-impaired participants were tested in pairs. Each pair consisted of one young normal-hearing participant and one older hearing-impaired participant. Hearing-impaired participants received directional hearing aid amplification, according to their audiogram, via a master hearing aid with gain provided according to the NAL-NL2 fitting formula. Pairs of participants were required to take part in naturalistic conversations through the use of a referential communication task. Each pair took part in five conversations, each of 5-min duration. During each conversation, participants were exposed to one of five different realistic acoustic environments presented through highly open headphones. The ordering of acoustic environments across experimental blocks was pseudorandomized. Resulting recordings of conversational speech were analyzed to determine the magnitude of speech modifications, in terms of vocal level and spectrum, produced by normal-hearing talkers as a function of both acoustic environment and the degree of high-frequency average hearing impairment of their conversation partner. Results The magnitude of spectral modifications of speech produced by normal-hearing talkers during conversations with aided hearing-impaired interlocutors was smaller than the speech modifications observed during conversations between the same pairs of participants in the absence of hearing aid amplification. Conclusions The provision of hearing aid amplification reduces the effort required to maintain communication in adverse conditions. This reduction in effort provides benefit to hearing-impaired individuals and also to the conversation partners of hearing-impaired individuals. By considering the impact of amplification on both sides of dyadic conversations, this approach contributes to an increased understanding of the likely impact of hearing impairment on everyday communication.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (09) ◽  
pp. 832-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Pittman ◽  
Mollie M. Hiipakka

Background: Before advanced noise-management features can be recommended for use in children with hearing loss, evidence regarding their ability to use these features to optimize speech perception is necessary. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between children's preference for, and performance with, four combinations of noise-management features in noisy listening environments. Research Design: Children with hearing loss were asked to repeat short sentences presented in steady-state noise or in multitalker babble while wearing ear-level hearing aids. The aids were programmed with four memories having an orthogonal arrangement of two noise-management features. The children were also asked to indicate the hearing aid memory that they preferred in each of the listening conditions both initially and after a short period of use. Study Sample: Fifteen children between the ages of 8 and 12 yr with moderate hearing losses, bilaterally. Results: The children's preference for noise management aligned well with their performance for at least three of the four listening conditions. The configuration of noise-management features had little effect on speech perception with the exception of reduced performance for speech originating from behind the child while in a directional hearing aid setting. Additionally, the children's preference appeared to be governed by listening comfort, even under conditions for which a benefit was not expected such as the use of digital noise reduction in the multitalker babble conditions. Conclusions: The results serve as evidence in support of the use of noise-management features in grade-school children as young as 8 yr of age.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solveig Christina Voss ◽  
M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller ◽  
Ieda Ishida ◽  
April Emily Pereira ◽  
Julia Seiter ◽  
...  

Background:Conventional directional hearing aid microphone technology would obstruct listening intentions in walking situations when the talker and listener walk side by side. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate hearing aids that use a motion sensor to address listening needs during walking. Methods:Participants were 22 older adults with moderate-to-severe hearing loss and experience using hearing aids. Each participant completed two walks in randomized order, one walk with each of two hearing aid programs: 1) a conventional classifier that activated an adaptive, multiband beamformer in loud environments and 2) a classifier that additionally utilized motion-based beamformer steering. Participants walked along a pre-defined track and completed tasks assessing speech understanding and environmental awareness. Results:Most participants preferred the motion-based beamformer steering for speech understanding, environmental awareness, overall listening, and sound quality (p<0.05). Additionally, measures of speech understanding (p<0.01) and localization of sound stimuli (p<0.05) were significantly better with the motion-based beamformer steering than with the conventional classifier.Conclusion:The results suggest that hearing aid users benefit from classifiers that use motion sensor input to adapt the signal processing according to the user’s activity. The real-world setup of this study had limitations but also high ecological validity.


2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 2380
Author(s):  
Scott T. Shaw ◽  
Andy J. LaRow ◽  
Gary L. Gibian ◽  
LaGuinn P. Sherlock ◽  
Robert Schulein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document