scholarly journals The effect of interaural electroacoustic hearing aid properties on sound localization abilities in normal and hearing‐impaired listeners

1978 ◽  
Vol 64 (S1) ◽  
pp. S36-S36
Author(s):  
J. Wilson ◽  
A. Yonovitz ◽  
I. Campbell ◽  
J. Spydell ◽  
C. L. Thompson
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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyoung Won Lee ◽  
Jin Sook Kim
Keyword(s):  

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Geller ◽  
Robert H. Margolis

Three experiments were conducted to explore the utility of magnitude estimation of loudness for hearing aid selection. In Experiment 1 the loudness discomfort level (LDL), most comfortable loudness (MCL), and magnitude estimations (MEs) of loudness were obtained from normal-hearing subjects. MCLs fell within a range of loudnesses that was relatively low on the loudness function. The LDLs were lower than previously published values. Experiment 2 was performed to identify the source of disparity between our LDL data and previously reported results. The effects of instructions are demonstrated and discussed. In Experiment 3 magnitude estimations of loudness were used to determine the loudness of tonal stimuli selected to represent ⅓ octave band levels of speech. Over the 500–4000 Hz range, the contributions of the various frequency regions to the loudness of speech appears to be nearly constant. Methods are proposed for (a) predicting the frequency-gain response of a hearing aid that restores normal loudness for speech for the hearing-impaired listener and (b) psychophysically evaluating the compression characteristic of a hearing aid.


2003 ◽  
Vol 123 (7) ◽  
pp. 846-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Duijvestijn ◽  
L. J. C. Anteunis ◽  
C. J. Hoek ◽  
R.H.S. Van Den Brink ◽  
M. N. Chenault ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-149
Author(s):  
Yasue Uchida ◽  
Saiko Sugiura ◽  
Takafumi Nakada ◽  
Erina Ito ◽  
Anna Yoshihara ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Ikeda ◽  
Shigeyuki Minami

Hearing impaired persons are required to drive with hearing aids to supplement their hearing ability, however, there has not been sufficient discussion regarding the impact of the use of a hearing aid on driving a vehicle. In order to investigate the actual usage and driving conditions of using hearing aids while driving a vehicle, this paper uses a questionnaire to survey (1) how easy it is to drive when wearing hearing aids, and (2) how often hearing aids are not worn while driving. Concerning the ease of driving when wearing a hearing aid, it was suggested that people with congenital hearing loss were more likely to rely on visual information, and those with acquired hearing loss continue to use their experience of hearing. When the level of disability is high, it is difficult to drive when using the hearing aid, and when the disability level is low, it is easier to drive. Regarding the frequency of driving without wearing hearing aids, about 60 % of respondents had such an experience. Those who often drive without hearing aids had experienced headaches due to noise from wearing hearing aids compared to those who wear hearing aids at all times. Hearing aids are necessary assistive devices for hearing impaired persons to obtain hearing information, and to provide a safe driving environment. Therefore, this paper addresses issues to maintain a comfortable driving environment while wearing a hearing aid.


Author(s):  
Snandan Sharma ◽  
Waldo Nogueira ◽  
A. John van Opstal ◽  
Josef Chalupper ◽  
Lucas H. M. Mens ◽  
...  

Purpose Speech understanding in noise and horizontal sound localization is poor in most cochlear implant (CI) users with a hearing aid (bimodal stimulation). This study investigated the effect of static and less-extreme adaptive frequency compression in hearing aids on spatial hearing. By means of frequency compression, we aimed to restore high-frequency audibility, and thus improve sound localization and spatial speech recognition. Method Sound-detection thresholds, sound localization, and spatial speech recognition were measured in eight bimodal CI users, with and without frequency compression. We tested two compression algorithms: a static algorithm, which compressed frequencies beyond the compression knee point (160 or 480 Hz), and an adaptive algorithm, which aimed to compress only consonants leaving vowels unaffected (adaptive knee-point frequencies from 736 to 2946 Hz). Results Compression yielded a strong audibility benefit (high-frequency thresholds improved by 40 and 24 dB for static and adaptive compression, respectively), no meaningful improvement in localization performance (errors remained > 30 deg), and spatial speech recognition across all participants. Localization biases without compression (toward the hearing-aid and implant side for low- and high-frequency sounds, respectively) disappeared or reversed with compression. The audibility benefits provided to each bimodal user partially explained any individual improvements in localization performance; shifts in bias; and, for six out of eight participants, benefits in spatial speech recognition. Conclusions We speculate that limiting factors such as a persistent hearing asymmetry and mismatch in spectral overlap prevent compression in bimodal users from improving sound localization. Therefore, the benefit in spatial release from masking by compression is likely due to a shift of attention to the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio facilitated by compression, rather than an improved spatial selectivity. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16869485


2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (09) ◽  
pp. 791-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyne Carette ◽  
Tim Van den Bogaert ◽  
Mark Laureyns ◽  
Jan Wouters

Background: Several studies have demonstrated negative effects of directional microphone configurations on left-right and front-back (FB) sound localization. New processing schemes, such as frequency-dependent directionality and front focus with wireless ear-to-ear communication in recent, commercial hearing aids may preserve the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and may introduce useful spectral cues necessary for FB disambiguation. Purpose: In this study, two hearing aids with different processing schemes, which were both designed to preserve the ability to localize sounds in the horizontal plane (left-right and FB), were compared. Research Design: We compared horizontal (left-right and FB) sound localization performance of hearing aid users fitted with two types of behind-the-ear (BTE) devices. The first type of BTE device had four different programs that provided (1) no directionality, (2–3) symmetric frequency-dependent directionality, and (4) an asymmetric configuration. The second pair of BTE devices was evaluated in its omnidirectional setting. This setting automatically activates a soft forward-oriented directional scheme that mimics the pinna effect. Also, wireless communication between the hearing aids was present in this configuration (5). A broadband stimulus was used as a target signal. The directional hearing abilities of the listeners were also evaluated without hearing aids as a reference. Study Sample: A total of 12 listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss participated in this study. All were experienced hearing-aid users. As a reference, 11 listeners with normal hearing participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The participants were positioned in a 13-speaker array (left-right, –90°/+90°) or 7-speaker array (FB, 0–180°) and were asked to report the number of the loudspeaker located the closest to where the sound was perceived. The root mean square error was calculated for the left-right experiment, and the percentage of FB errors was used as a FB performance measure. Results were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the left-right localization task, no significant differences could be proven between the unaided condition and both partial directional schemes and the omnidirectional scheme. The soft forward-oriented system and the asymmetric system did show a detrimental effect compared with the unaided condition. On average, localization was worst when users used the asymmetric condition. Analysis of the results of the FB experiment showed good performance, similar to unaided, with both the partial directional systems and the asymmetric configuration. Significantly worse performance was found with the omnidirectional and the omnidirectional soft forward-oriented BTE systems compared with the other hearing-aid systems. Conclusions: Bilaterally fitted partial directional systems preserve (part of) the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and introduce, preserve, or enhance useful spectral cues that allow FB disambiguation. Omnidirectional systems, although good for left-right localization, do not provide the user with enough spectral information for an optimal FB localization performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document