Binaural-cue weighting in free-field localization of narrowband noises presented with open-fit hearing aids and in simulated reverberation

2016 ◽  
Vol 139 (4) ◽  
pp. 1992-1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna C. Diedesch ◽  
G. C. Stecker
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Cue Weighting ◽  
Field Localization

Underlying Structure of Auditory-Visual Consonant Perception by Hearing-Impaired Children and the Influences of Syllabic Compression

1988 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Busby ◽  
Y. C. Tong ◽  
G. M. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Acoustic Parameter ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Visual Signal ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Choice Procedure ◽  
Release Times ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

The identification of consonants in a/-C-/a/nonsense syllables, using a fourteen-alternative forced-choice procedure, was examined in 4 profoundly hearing-impaired children under five conditions: audition alone using hearing aids in free-field (A),vision alone (V), auditory-visual using hearing aids in free-field (AV1), auditory-visual with linear amplification (AV2), and auditory-visual with syllabic compression (AV3). In the AV2 and AV3 conditions, acoustic signals were binaurally presented by magnetic or acoustic coupling to the subjects' hearing aids. The syllabic compressor had a compression ratio of 10:1, and attack and release times were 1.2 ms and 60 ms. The confusion matrices were subjected to two analysis methods: hierarchical clustering and information transmission analysis using articulatory features. The same general conclusions were drawn on the basis of results obtained from either analysis method. The results indicated better performance in the V condition than in the A condition. In the three AV conditions, the subjects predominately combined the acoustic parameter of voicing with the visual signal. No consistent differences were recorded across the three AV conditions. Syllabic compression did not, therefore, appear to have a significant influence on AV perception for these children. A high degree of subject variability was recorded for the A and three AV conditions, but not for the V condition.

scholarly journals Hearing Rehabilitation through Bone-Conducted Sound Stimulation: Preliminary Results

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 012-017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayez Bahmad Jr ◽  
Carolina Cardoso ◽  
Fernanda Caldas ◽  
Monique Barreto ◽  
Anacléia Hilgenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Subcutaneous Tissue ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Skin Impedance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After

Introduction The bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) is a bone conduction system that transmits the sound directly to the inner ear by surpassing the skin impedance and the subcutaneous tissue. It is indicated for patients with mixed, conductive and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss who did not benefit from conventional hearing aids (HAs). Although the benefits from BAHA are well demonstrated internationally, this field still lacks studies in Brazil. Objective To assess the auditory rehabilitation process in BAHA users through audiological, speech perception and tinnitus aspects. Methods Individuals with hearing loss were assessed before and after the implantation. The participants were subjected to pure tone audiometry in free field, functional gain audiometry, speech perception tests, tinnitus handicap inventory (THI) in open format, and to the visual analog scale (VAS). Results It was found that the participants benefited from the use of BAHA. The difference in the performance of the participants before and after the BAHA surgery was significant in terms of hearing acuity. There was no statistically significant difference in the speech perception tests. The tinnitus assessment showed that 80% of the participants scored slight tinnitus severity in THI after using a BAHA. Eighty percent of the participants classified their tinnitus as absent to mild in the VAS after the surgery. Conclusion Based on the results of the current study, we can conclude that the participants improved both the auditory perception and the tinnitus handicap.

scholarly journals Weighting of Acoustic Cues to a Manner Distinction by Children With and Without Hearing Loss

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 1077-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Nittrouer ◽  
Joanna H. Lowenstein
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Phonemic Awareness ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Spectral Structure ◽  
Cue Weighting ◽  
Spectral Cues ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Purpose Children must develop optimal perceptual weighting strategies for processing speech in their first language. Hearing loss can interfere with that development, especially if cochlear implants are required. The three goals of this study were to measure, for children with and without hearing loss: (a) cue weighting for a manner distinction, (b) sensitivity to those cues, and (c) real-world communication functions. Method One hundred and seven children (43 with normal hearing [NH], 17 with hearing aids [HAs], and 47 with cochlear implants [CIs]) performed several tasks: labeling of stimuli from /bɑ/-to-/wɑ/ continua varying in formant and amplitude rise time (FRT and ART), discrimination of ART, word recognition, and phonemic awareness. Results Children with hearing loss were less attentive overall to acoustic structure than children with NH. Children with CIs, but not those with HAs, weighted FRT less and ART more than children with NH. Sensitivity could not explain cue weighting. FRT cue weighting explained significant amounts of variability in word recognition and phonemic awareness; ART cue weighting did not. Conclusion Signal degradation inhibits access to spectral structure for children with CIs, but cannot explain their delayed development of optimal weighting strategies. Auditory training could strengthen the weighting of spectral cues for children with CIs, thus aiding spoken language acquisition.

Directional Processing and Noise Reduction in Hearing Aids: Individual and Situational Influences on Preferred Setting

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (08) ◽  
pp. 628-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Neher ◽  
Kirsten C. Wagener ◽  
Rosa-Linde Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Cognitive Factors ◽  
Noise Sensitivity ◽  
Future Research

Background: A better understanding of individual differences in hearing aid (HA) outcome is a prerequisite for more personalized HA fittings. Currently, knowledge of how different user factors relate to response to directional processing (DIR) and noise reduction (NR) is sparse. Purpose: To extend a recent study linking preference for DIR and NR to pure-tone average hearing thresholds (PTA) and cognitive factors by investigating if (1) equivalent links exist for different types of DIR and NR, (2) self-reported noise sensitivity and personality can account for additional variability in preferred DIR and NR settings, and (3) spatial target speech configuration interacts with individual DIR preference. Research Design: Using a correlational study design, overall preference for different combinations of DIR and NR programmed into a commercial HA was assessed in a complex speech-in-noise situation and related to PTA, cognitive function, and different personality traits. Study Sample: Sixty experienced HA users aged 60–82 yr with controlled variation in PTA and working memory capacity took part in this study. All of them had participated in the earlier study, as part of which they were tested on a measure of “executive control” tapping into cognitive functions such as working memory, mental flexibility, and selective attention. Data Collection and Analysis: Six HA settings based on unilateral (within-device) or bilateral (across-device) DIR combined with inactive, moderate, or strong single-microphone NR were programmed into a pair of behind-the-ear HAs together with individually prescribed amplification. Overall preference was assessed using a free-field simulation of a busy cafeteria situation with either a single frontal talker or two talkers at ±30° azimuth as the target speech. In addition, two questionnaires targeting noise sensitivity and the “Big Five” personality traits were administered. Data were analyzed using multiple regression analyses and repeated-measures analyses of variance with a focus on potential interactions between the HA settings and user factors. Results: Consistent with the earlier study, preferred HA setting was related to PTA and executive control. However, effects were weaker this time. Noise sensitivity and personality did not interact with HA settings. As expected, spatial target speech configuration influenced preference, with bilateral and unilateral DIR “winning” in the single- and two-talker scenario, respectively. In general, participants with higher PTA tended to more strongly prefer bilateral DIR than participants with lower PTA. Conclusions: Although the current study lends some support to the view that PTA and cognitive factors affect preferred DIR and NR setting, it also indicates that these effects can vary across noise management technologies. To facilitate more personalized HA fittings, future research should investigate the source of this variability.

Estimation of the Benefit of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 872-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
George G. Browning ◽  
Stuart Gatehouse
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Chronic Otitis Media ◽  
Valuable Alternative ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Air Conduction

Implantable bone conduction hearing aids are a valuable alternative to conventional aids for those who cannot use a conventional air conduction aid or find it difficult to use because of an aural discharge, most commonly due to chronic otitis media. Previously reported series of the use of a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) come from the originators of this device, and an independent report of their benefit and use, especially in previous air conduction aid users, would be of value. Twenty-three patients were evaluated at least 6 months after implantation of a BAHA. All 7 previous bone conduction aid users were delighted with their BAHA, reporting increased comfort and hearing benefit that was backed by audiometric evidence. Of the 16 individuals who previously used an air conduction aid, 11 (69%) were delighted users of their BAHA. Unfortunately, the other 5 (31%) reverted to solely using their air conduction aid. There was no obvious predictor as to how these individuals might have been identified prior to implantation. In particular, their pure tone thresholds, especially the bone conduction thresholds, were no different from those of the 11 BAHA users. However, in free field audiometry, the users gained superior benefit from their BAHA compared to their air conduction aid, whereas the nonusers did not. In conclusion, in all series to date, previous users of a conventional bone conduction aid have been delighted users of a BAHA and have gained superior audiometric benefit. This is not necessarily the case with previous air conduction aid users. As most patients rate hearing ability to be more important than absence of an aural discharge, it is important to develop methods that might predict benefit from a BAHA prior to implantation.

Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth: Development and Clinical Validation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Melisa Vigliano ◽  
Alicia Huarte ◽  
Diego Borro ◽  
Unai Lasarte ◽  
Manuel J. Manrique Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Accurate Information ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Testing Method ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Technological Developments

Background: Technological developments to treat hearing loss with different types of hearing aids and auditory implants have improved the auditory perception of patients, particularly in highly complex listening conditions. These devices can be fitted and adapted to enhance speech perception. Audiological tests that assess hearing with and without auditory devices have traditionally taken place in sound-attenuated audiometric booths. Although the insights gained from these tests are extremely useful, they do not accurately reflect everyday listening situations, and accurate information about the potential benefits of the hearing device in real acoustic scenarios cannot be established. Consequently, it is difficult to optimize this technology since fitting cannot be customized. Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate an audiological testing method using a new development, the Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth (REAB), in clinical practice. Materials: We used specifically designed software to perform audiological tests in an 8 m2 sound-attenuated booth. The REAB was designed to conduct audiological tests in standard testing conditions and in new hearing scenarios that simulate real-life situations since sound can be emitted simultaneously or alternately 360° around the patient, along with 3D images. Methods: Prospective study in which subjects were tested randomly in the REAB and the conventional booth (CB) in free field. Results: 150 subjects were recruited, mean age 56 ± 20.7 years. Auditory outcomes for pure-tone audiometry showed a high correlation; this was also the case for speech audiometries in quiet and in noise. The outcome of the new scenarios with real-life noise was plotted, including the mean values and their confidence intervals. A decreasing trend was observed in the results obtained by the different groups, according to their hearing levels. Conclusions: We have developed and validated a new audiological testing method that enables hearing ability to be assessed in listening conditions similar to those found in real life. The REAB complements the tests performed in CBs, thereby aiding the diagnostic process by reproducing acoustic and visual scenarios that conventional tests do not offer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document