scholarly journals Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Gieseler ◽  
Maike A. S. Tahden ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Kirsten C. Wagener ◽  
Markus Meis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals Dynamic Relation Between Working Memory Capacity and Speech Recognition in Noise During the First 6 Months of Hearing Aid Use

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 233121651455868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine H. N. Ng ◽  
Elisabet Classon ◽  
Birgitta Larsby ◽  
Stig Arlinger ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Dynamic Relation ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Working Memory Capacity May Influence Perceived Effort during Aided Speech Recognition in Noise

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 577-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rudner ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Thomas Behrens ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén ◽  
Jerker Rönnberg
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Perceived Effort ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity. Purpose: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. Research Design: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. Study Sample: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). Data Collection and Analysis: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort. Conclusions: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Childrenʼs Speech Recognition in Noise Using Omni-Directional and Dual-Microphone Hearing Aid Technology

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith S. Gravel ◽  
Nancy Fausel ◽  
Christine Liskow ◽  
Janie Chobot
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals İşitme cihazı kullanan çocuklarda gürültüde konuşmayı anlama becerisinin değerlendirilmesi: Preliminer sonuçlar

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Ecem KARTAL ÖZCAN ◽  
Merve ÖZBAL BATUK ◽  
Şule KAYA ◽  
Gonca SENNAROĞLU
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Classroom Environment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Assessment of speech perception in noise in children with hearing aids: Preliminary results* Objective: Noisy environments are a part of the daily life of children, just like adults. Children with hearing loss who wear hearing aids are more susceptible to the negative effects of noise than their normal-hearing peers. This study aims to evaluate the speech recognition in noise performance of hearing aid users and compare them with their normal-hearing peers. Material and Method: Five children aged 6-12 years with bilateral moderate to severe symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and using bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aids were included in the study. 4 different conditions of the Turkish HINT-C were applied, and a speech recognition threshold (SRT) is determined for each condition. Results: Regardless of their age, the SRT needed by children with hearing aids to achieve equal performance with their normal-hearing peers was found to be higher for all test conditions. As seen in children with normal hearing in general, the mean noise front score of the children with hearing loss was higher than the mean noise right and noise left scores. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that children with bilaterally symmetrical moderate to severe hearing loss achieved poor speech recognition scores in environments similar to the classroom environment, compared to their normal-hearing peers. Our results guided appropriate rehabilitation and follow-up. Keywords: noise, speech recognition in noise, hearing loss, hearing aid, pediatric audiology, HINT, HINT-C

Speech-Recognition Performance after Long-Term Hearing Aid Use

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 292-303
Author(s):  
Janet E. Shanks ◽  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Patricia Stelmachowicz ◽  
Gene W. Bratt ◽  
David W. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Stimulus Level ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Noise Condition ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Larson et al (2000) reported the findings of a multicenter, NIDCD/VA clinical trial that compared hearing aid performance for three output limiting circuits in 360 adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The current study was undertaken to examine long-term hearing aid benefit in this same group of participants following five to six years of hearing aid use. The speech-recognition portion of the follow-up study enrolled 108 participants from the original study, 85% of whom were current hearing aid users and 15% of whom had not worn hearing aids during the past month (nonusers). Recognition performance in sound field on the NU-6 (quiet at 62 dB SPL) and the CST (quiet at 74 dB SPL and with -3 and 3 dB signal-to-babble ratios [S/B] at 62 and 74 dB SPL) was measured unaided and aided whenever possible. Speech-recognition abilities decreased significantly since the original study. Speech-recognition decrements were observed regardless of the speech materials (NU-6 and CST), test condition (quiet and noise), S/B (-3 and 3 dB), or stimulus level (62 and 74 dB SPL). Despite decreases in speech recognition, hearing aid benefit remained largely unchanged since the original study; aided performance exceeded unaided performance regardless of presentation level or noise condition. As in the original study, the relations among stimulus level, S/B, and speech-recognition performance were complex. Larson y col. (2000) reportaron los hallazgos de un estudio clínicos multicéntrico del NIDCD/VA que comparó el desempeño en el uso de auxiliares auditivos (AA) con tres circuitos de limitación de la salida, en 360 adultos con pérdida auditiva sensorineural simétrica. El estudio actual fue conducido para examinar el beneficio a largo plazo del AA en el mismo grupo de participantes, luego de cinco a seis años de utilización del AA. La porción de reconocimiento de lenguaje del estudio de seguimiento involucró a 108 participantes del estudio original, 85% de los cuáles eran actuales usuarios de AA y 15% que no habían usado AA durante el mes anterior (no usuarios). El desempeño en reconocimiento del lenguaje en campo sonoro con el NU-6 (en silencio a 62 dB SPL) y con el CST (en silencio a 74 dB SPL, y con tasas de señal/balbuceo de -3 y +3 dB [S&B] a 62 y 74 dB SPL), fue medido con y sin amplificación cuando resultó posible. Las habilidades de reconocimiento del lenguaje habían disminuido significativamente desde el estudio original. Se observó reducción en el reconocimiento del lenguaje independientemente del material logoaudiométrico (NU-6 y CST), las condiciones de la prueba (en silencio o en ruido), S/B (-3 y +3 dB), o la intensidad del estímulo (62 y 74 dB SPL). A pesar de la disminución en el reconocimiento del lenguaje, el beneficio del AA permaneció sin cambios en relación al estudio original; el desempeño con amplificación superó el desempeño sin amplificación sin importar la intensidad de la presentación o las condiciones de ruido. Al igual que en el estudio original, las relaciones entre el nivel de estímulo, la S/B y el desempeño en el reconocimiento de lenguaje fueron complejas.

scholarly journals Evaluating a smartphone digits-in-noise test as part of the audiometric test battery

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni-Mari Potgieter ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
Cas Smits
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Battery Design ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Audiometric Test ◽  
Female Subjects

Background: Speech-in-noise tests have become a valuable part of the audiometric test battery providing an indication of a listener’s ability to function in background noise. A simple digits-in-noise (DIN) test could be valuable to support diagnostic hearing assessments, hearing aid fittings and counselling for both paediatric and adult populations. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the South African English smartphone DIN test’s performance as part of the audiometric test battery. Design: This descriptive study evaluated 109 adult subjects (43 male and 66 female subjects) with and without sensorineural hearing loss by comparing pure-tone air conduction thresholds, speech recognition monaural performance scores (SRS dB) and the DIN speech reception threshold (SRT). An additional nine adult hearing aid users (four male and five female subjects) were included in a subset to determine aided and unaided DIN SRTs. Results: The DIN SRT is strongly associated with the best ear 4 frequency pure-tone average (4FPTA) (rs = 0.81) and maximum SRS dB (r = 0.72). The DIN test had high sensitivity and specificity to identify abnormal pure-tone (0.88 and 0.88, respectively) and SRS dB (0.76 and 0.88, respectively) results. There was a mean signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement in the aided condition that demonstrated an overall benefit of 0.84 SNR dB. Conclusion: The DIN SRT was significantly correlated with the best ear 4FPTA and maximum SRS dB. The DIN SRT provides a useful measure of speech recognition in noise that can evaluate hearing aid fittings, manage counselling and hearing expectations.

scholarly journals Construct Validity of the Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 872-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Xuyang Zhang ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Field Testing ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Natural Environments ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Background: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated assessments/surveys to collect data describing respondents’ current or very recent experiences and related contexts in their natural environments. The use of EMA in audiology research is growing. Purpose: This study examined the construct validity (i.e., the degree to which a measurement reflects what it is intended to measure) of EMA in terms of measuring speech understanding and related listening context. Experiment 1 investigated the extent to which individuals can accurately report their speech recognition performance and characterize the listening context in controlled environments. Experiment 2 investigated whether the data aggregated across multiple EMA surveys conducted in uncontrolled, real-world environments would reveal a valid pattern that was consistent with the established relationships between speech understanding, hearing aid use, listening context, and lifestyle. Research Design: This is an observational study. Study Sample: Twelve and twenty-seven adults with hearing impairment participated in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Data Collection and Analysis: In the laboratory testing of Experiment 1, participants estimated their speech recognition performance in settings wherein the signal-to-noise ratio was fixed or constantly varied across sentences. In the field testing the participants reported the listening context (e.g., noisiness level) of several semicontrolled real-world conversations. Their reports were compared to (1) the context described by normal-hearing observers and (2) the background noise level measured using a sound level meter. In Experiment 2, participants repeatedly reported the degree of speech understanding, hearing aid use, and listening context using paper-and-pencil journals in their natural environments for 1 week. They also carried noise dosimeters to measure the sound level. The associations between (1) speech understanding, hearing aid use, and listening context, (2) dosimeter sound level and self-reported noisiness level, and (3) dosimeter data and lifestyle quantified using the journals were examined. Results: For Experiment 1, the reported and measured speech recognition scores were highly correlated across all test conditions (r = 0.94 to 0.97). The field testing results revealed that most listening context properties reported by the participants were highly consistent with those described by the observers (74–95% consistency), except for noisiness rating (58%). Nevertheless, higher noisiness rating was associated with higher background noise level. For Experiment 2, the EMA results revealed several associations: better speech understanding was associated with the use of hearing aids, front-located speech, and lower dosimeter sound level; higher noisiness rating was associated with higher dosimeter sound level; listeners with more diverse lifestyles tended to have higher dosimeter sound levels. Conclusions: Adults with hearing impairment were able to report their listening experiences, such as speech understanding, and characterize listening context in controlled environments with reasonable accuracy. The pattern of the data aggregated across multiple EMA surveys conducted in a wide range of uncontrolled real-world environment was consistent with the established knowledge in audiology. The two experiments suggested that, regarding speech understanding and related listening contexts, EMA reflects what it is intended to measure, supporting its construct validity in audiology research.

scholarly journals Effect of (Mis)Matched Compression Speed on Speech Recognition in Bimodal Listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652094897
Author(s):  
Dimitar Spirrov ◽  
Eugen Kludt ◽  
Eline Verschueren ◽  
Andreas Büchner ◽  
Tom Francart
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Testing Condition ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Automatic gain control (AGC) compresses the wide dynamic range of sounds to the narrow dynamic range of hearing-impaired listeners. Setting AGC parameters (time constants and knee points) is an important part of the fitting of hearing devices. These parameters do not only influence overall loudness elicited by the hearing devices but can also affect the recognition of speech in noise. We investigated whether matching knee points and time constants of the AGC between the cochlear implant and the hearing aid of bimodal listeners would improve speech recognition in noise. We recruited 18 bimodal listeners and provided them all with the same cochlear-implant processor and hearing aid. We compared the matched AGCs with the default device settings with mismatched AGCs. As a baseline, we also included a condition with the mismatched AGCs of the participants’ own devices. We tested speech recognition in quiet and in noise presented from different directions. The time constants affected outcomes in the monaural testing condition with the cochlear implant alone. There were no specific binaural performance differences between the two AGC settings. Therefore, the performance was mostly dependent on the monaural cochlear implant alone condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document