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.

Hearing Impaired Children's Preference for, and Performance with, Four Combinations of Directional Microphone and Digital Noise Reduction Technology

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (09) ◽  
pp. 832-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Pittman ◽  
Mollie M. Hiipakka
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Noise Management

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.

Evaluation of a Transient Noise Reduction Strategy for Hearing Aids

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 606-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
HaiHong Liu ◽  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Demin Han ◽  
Luo Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
T Test ◽  
Reduction Strategy ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Speech Clarity

Background: Transient noise can be disruptive for people wearing hearing aids. Ideally, the transient noise should be detected and controlled by the signal processor without disrupting speech and other intended input signals. A technology for detecting and controlling transient noises in hearing aids was evaluated in this study. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a transient noise reduction strategy on various transient noises and to determine whether the strategy has a negative impact on sound quality of intended speech inputs. Research Design: This was a quasi-experimental study. The study involved 24 hearing aid users. Each participant was asked to rate the parameters of speech clarity, transient noise loudness, and overall impression for speech stimuli under the algorithm-on and algorithm-off conditions. During the evaluation, three types of stimuli were used: transient noises, speech, and background noises. The transient noises included “knife on a ceramic board,” “mug on a tabletop,” “office door slamming,” “car door slamming,” and “pen tapping on countertop.” The speech sentences used for the test were presented by a male speaker in Mandarin. The background noises included “party noise” and “traffic noise.” All of these sounds were combined into five listening situations: (1) speech only, (2) transient noise only, (3) speech and transient noise, (4) background noise and transient noise, and (5) speech and background noise and transient noise. Results: There was no significant difference on the ratings of speech clarity between the algorithm-on and algorithm-off (t-test, p = 0.103). Further analysis revealed that speech clarity was significant better at 70 dB SLP than 55 dB SPL (p < 0.001). For transient noise loudness: under the algorithm-off condition, the percentages of subjects rating the transient noise to be somewhat soft, appropriate, somewhat loud, and too loud were 0.2, 47.1, 29.6, and 23.1%, respectively. The corresponding percentages under the algorithm-on were 3.0, 72.6, 22.9, and 1.4%, respectively. A significant difference on the ratings of the transient noise loudness was found between the algorithm-on and algorithm-off (t-test, p < 0.001). For overall impression for speech stimuli: under the algorithm-off condition, the percentage of subjects rating the algorithm to be not helpful at all, somewhat helpful, helpful, and very helpful for speech stimuli were 36.5, 20.8, 33.9, and 8.9%, respectively. Under the algorithm-on condition, the corresponding percentages were 35.0, 19.3, 30.7, and 15.0%, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed there was a significant difference on the ratings of overall impression on speech stimuli. The ratings under the algorithm-on condition were significantly more helpful for speech understanding than the ratings under algorithm-off (t-test, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The transient noise reduction strategy appropriately controlled the loudness for most of the transient noises and did not affect the sound quality, which could be beneficial to hearing aid wearers.

scholarly journals Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (09) ◽  
pp. 810-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Kirby ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Clairissa M. Mollak ◽  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
At Home

AbstractSloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds.This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children.Participants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm.Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users.Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.Overall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.These results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.

Low-Frequency Gain Compensation in Directional Hearing Aids

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd Ricketts ◽  
Paula Henry
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Gain Compensation

Hearing aids currently available on the market with both omnidirectional and directional microphone modes often have reduced amplification in the low frequencies when in directional microphone mode due to better phase matching. The effects of this low-frequency gain reduction for individuals with hearing loss in the low frequencies was of primary interest. Changes in sound quality for quiet listening environments following gain compensation in the low frequencies was of secondary interest. Thirty participants were fit with bilateral in-the-ear hearing aids, which were programmed in three ways while in directional microphone mode: no-gain compensation, adaptive-gain compensation, and full-gain compensation. All participants were tested with speech in noise tasks. Participants also made sound quality judgments based on monaural recordings made from the hearing aid. Results support a need for gain compensation for individuals with low-frequency hearing loss of greater than 40 dB HL.

Quantification of Directional Benefit across Different Polar Response Patterns

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (09) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Jessica L.M. Egge ◽  
Jill L. Tubbs ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner ◽  
Gregory A. Flamme
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the directivity of a directional microphone hearing aid and listener performance. Hearing aids were fit bilaterally to 19 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss, and five microphone conditions were assessed: omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid, and "monofit," wherein the left hearing aid was set to omnidirectional and the right hearing aid to hypercardioid. Speech perception performance was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Connected Speech Test (CST). Subjects also assessed eight domains of sound quality for three stimuli (speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music). A diffuse soundfield system composed of eight loudspeakers forming the corners of a cube was used to output the background noise for the speech perception tasks and the three stimuli used for sound quality judgments. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the HINT or CST performance, or sound quality judgments, across the four directional microphone conditions when tested in a diffuse field. Of particular interest was the monofit condition: Performance on speech perception tests was the same whether one or two directional microphones were used.

The Effects of Hearing Aid Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Processing on Listening Effort in Older Adults with Hearing Loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (01) ◽  
pp. 029-041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Desjardins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Directional Microphone

Background: Older listeners with hearing loss may exert more cognitive resources to maintain a level of listening performance similar to that of younger listeners with normal hearing. Unfortunately, this increase in cognitive load, which is often conceptualized as increased listening effort, may come at the cost of cognitive processing resources that might otherwise be available for other tasks. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the independent and combined effects of a hearing aid directional microphone and a noise reduction (NR) algorithm on reducing the listening effort older listeners with hearing loss expend on a speech-in-noise task. Research Design: Participants were fitted with study worn commercially available behind-the-ear hearing aids. Listening effort on a sentence recognition in noise task was measured using an objective auditory–visual dual-task paradigm. The primary task required participants to repeat sentences presented in quiet and in a four-talker babble. The secondary task was a digital visual pursuit rotor-tracking test, for which participants were instructed to use a computer mouse to track a moving target around an ellipse that was displayed on a computer screen. Each of the two tasks was presented separately and concurrently at a fixed overall speech recognition performance level of 50% correct with and without the directional microphone and/or the NR algorithm activated in the hearing aids. In addition, participants reported how effortful it was to listen to the sentences in quiet and in background noise in the different hearing aid listening conditions. Study Sample: Fifteen older listeners with mild sloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. Results: Listening effort in background noise was significantly reduced with the directional microphones activated in the hearing aids. However, there was no significant change in listening effort with the hearing aid NR algorithm compared to no noise processing. Correlation analysis between objective and self-reported ratings of listening effort showed no significant relation. Conclusions: Directional microphone processing effectively reduced the cognitive load of listening to speech in background noise. This is significant because it is likely that listeners with hearing impairment will frequently encounter noisy speech in their everyday communications.

Investigation of Extended Bandwidth Hearing Aid Amplification on Speech Intelligibility and Sound Quality in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 243-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angeline Seeto ◽  
Grant D. Searchfield
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Significant Benefit ◽  
Band Frequency ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

AbstractAdvances in digital signal processing have made it possible to provide a wide-band frequency response with smooth, precise spectral shaping. Several manufacturers have introduced hearing aids that are claimed to provide gain for frequencies up to 10–12 kHz. However, there is currently limited evidence and very few independent studies evaluating the performance of the extended bandwidth hearing aids that have recently become available.This study investigated an extended bandwidth hearing aid using measures of speech intelligibility and sound quality to find out whether there was a significant benefit of extended bandwidth amplification over standard amplification.Repeated measures study designed to examine the efficacy of extended bandwidth amplification compared to standard bandwidth amplification.Sixteen adult participants with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss.Participants were bilaterally fit with a pair of Widex Mind 440 behind-the-ear hearing aids programmed with a standard bandwidth fitting and an extended bandwidth fitting; the latter provided gain up to 10 kHz.For each fitting, and an unaided condition, participants completed two speech measures of aided benefit, the Quick Speech-in-Noise test (QuickSIN™) and the Phonak Phoneme Perception Test (PPT; high-frequency perception in quiet), and a measure of sound quality rating.There were no significant differences found between unaided and aided conditions for QuickSIN™ scores. For the PPT, there were statistically significantly lower (improved) detection thresholds at high frequencies (6 and 9 kHz) with the extended bandwidth fitting. Although not statistically significant, participants were able to distinguish between 6 and 9 kHz 50% better with extended bandwidth. No significant difference was found in ability to recognize phonemes in quiet between the unaided and aided conditions when phonemes only contained frequency content <6 kHz. However significant benefit was found with the extended bandwidth fitting for recognition of 9-kHz phonemes. No significant difference in sound quality preference was found between the standard bandwidth and extended bandwidth fittings.This study demonstrated that a pair of currently available extended bandwidth hearing aids was technically capable of delivering high-frequency amplification that was both audible and useable to listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. This amplification was of acceptable sound quality. Further research, particularly field trials, is required to ascertain the real-world benefit of high-frequency amplification.

scholarly journals Evaluating the causative factors that lead to rejection of hearing aids among young adults having moderate to severe degree sensorineural hearing loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-57
Author(s):  
Hafiz Muhammad Usama Basheer ◽  
Atia Ur Rehman ◽  
Humaira Waseem ◽  
Wajeeha Zaib
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Situational Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Financial Factors ◽  
Causative Factors

Background: Hearing loss in young adulthood causes real stigma and a state of denial. The crucial clinical management to sustain the hearing loss is hearing aid fitting, but most adult people reject it or do not use it. Many factors, including social, personal, and device problems, lessen the usage of hearing aid. The objective of this study was to evaluate the causative factors which can lead to the rejection of hearing aids.  Patients and methods: This was a cross-sectional survey carried out in 9 cities of Punjab, Pakistan, using a convenient sampling technique during summer 2018. A total of 171 participants were included who were young adults ranging from 19-40 years. A questionnaire with 11 factors and a further 35 sub-reasons was given to the participants. Questions were close-ended in yes or no. Data were analyzed through frequency and percentages tabulation with SPSS software. Results: Results showed that hearing aid value/speech clarity was the most problematic reason for patients to reject hearing aid. The given factor had four sub-reasons ('noisy situation,' 'poor benefit,' 'poor sound quality, and 'not suitable for the type of hearing loss). A total number n=154 (90.05%) marked yes for facing poor sound quality followed by poor benefit n=141 (82.45%), not suitable for the type of hearing loss n=121 (70.76%) and noisy situation n=118 (69.00%), thus making hearing aid value the leading cause of rejection. The second leading cause was financial factors followed by situational factors, appearance, fit and comfort, device factors, psychosocial factors, ear infections, care and maintenance, attitude, and family pressure to use a hearing aid.  Conclusion: Most prevalent cause of not taking up a hearing aid is the hearing aid value followed by financial factors, situational factors, appearance, fit, and comfort.

Sound Quality Measures for Speech in Noise through a Commercial Hearing Aid Implementing "Digital Noise Reduction"

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (05) ◽  
pp. 270-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
Benjamin W.Y. Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Strong Preference ◽  
Paired Comparisons ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

This brief report discusses the affect of digital noise reduction (DNR) processing on aided speech recognition and sound quality measures in 14 adults fitted with a commercial hearing aid. Measures of speech recognition and sound quality were obtained in two different speech-in-noise conditions (71 dBA speech, +6 dB SNR and 75 dBA speech, +1 dB SNR). The results revealed that the presence or absence of DNR processing did not impact speech recognition in noise (either positively or negatively). Paired comparisons of sound quality for the same speech in noise signals, however, revealed a strong preference for DNR processing. These data suggest that at least one implementation of DNR processing is capable of providing improved sound quality, for speech in noise, in the absence of improved speech recognition.

Evaluation of Adaptive Noise Management Technologies for School-Age Children with Hearing Loss

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (05) ◽  
pp. 415-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Duke ◽  
Erin Schafer ◽  
Christine Jones ◽  
Lori Rakita
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Adaptive Noise ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Noise Management

Background: Children with hearing loss experience significant difficulty understanding speech in noisy and reverberant situations. Adaptive noise management technologies, such as fully adaptive directional microphones and digital noise reduction, have the potential to improve communication in noise for children with hearing aids. However, there are no published studies evaluating the potential benefits children receive from the use of adaptive noise management technologies in simulated real-world environments as well as in daily situations. Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition, speech intelligibility ratings (SIRs), and sound preferences of children using hearing aids equipped with and without adaptive noise management technologies. Research Design: A single-group, repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained in four simulated environments. In each simulated environment, participants were tested in a basic listening program with minimal noise management features, a manual program designed for that scene, and the hearing instruments’ adaptive operating system that steered hearing instrument parameterization based on the characteristics of the environment. Study Sample: Twelve children with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition and SIRs were evaluated in three hearing aid programs with and without noise management technologies across two different test sessions and various listening environments. Also, the participants’ perceptual hearing performance in daily real-world listening situations with two of the hearing aid programs was evaluated during a four- to six-week field trial that took place between the two laboratory sessions. Results: On average, the use of adaptive noise management technology improved sentence recognition in noise for speech presented in front of the participant but resulted in a decrement in performance for signals arriving from behind when the participant was facing forward. However, the improvement with adaptive noise management exceeded the decrement obtained when the signal arrived from behind. Most participants reported better subjective SIRs when using adaptive noise management technologies, particularly when the signal of interest arrived from in front of the listener. In addition, most participants reported a preference for the technology with an automatically switching, adaptive directional microphone and adaptive noise reduction in real-world listening situations when compared to conventional, omnidirectional microphone use with minimal noise reduction processing. Conclusions: Use of the adaptive noise management technologies evaluated in this study improves school-age children’s speech recognition in noise for signals arriving from the front. Although a small decrement in speech recognition in noise was observed for signals arriving from behind the listener, most participants reported a preference for use of noise management technology both when the signal arrived from in front and from behind the child. The results of this study suggest that adaptive noise management technologies should be considered for use with school-age children when listening in academic and social situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document