Recording and Classification of the Acoustic Environment of Hearing Aid Users

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (04) ◽  
pp. 348-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Carola Wagener ◽  
Martin Hansen ◽  
Carl Ludvigsen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Acoustic Analysis ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Acoustic Characteristics ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Subjective Assessments ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This article investigates the different acoustic signals that hearing aid users are exposed to in their everyday environment. Binaural microphone signals from recording positions close to the microphone locations of behind-the-ear hearing aids were recorded by 20 hearing aid users during daily life. The recorded signals were acoustically analyzed with regard to narrow-band short-term level distributions. The subjects also performed subjective assessments of their own recordings in the laboratory using several questions from the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) questionnaire. Both the questionnaire and the acoustic analysis data show that the importance, problems, and hearing aid benefit as well as the acoustic characteristics of the individual situations vary a lot across subjects. Therefore, in addition to a nonlinear hearing aid fitting, further signal classification and signal/situation-adaptive features are highly desirable inside modern hearing aids. These should be compatible with the variability of the individual sound environments of hearing-impaired listeners. Este artículo investiga las diferentes señales acústicas a las que están expuestos los usuarios de auxiliares auditivos en sus ambientes cotidianos. Se registraron señales biauriculares de micrófono desde posiciones de registro cercanas a la localización de los micrófonos de auxiliares auditivos retroauriculares, en 20 usuarios de auxiliares auditivos durante su vida diaria. Las señales registradas fueron analizadas acústicamente con relación a las distribuciones de niveles de banda estrecha a corto plazo. Los sujetos también realizaron evaluaciones subjetivas de sus propios registros en el laboratorio usando varias preguntas del cuestionario Perfil de Glasgow de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (GHABP). Tanto el cuestionario como los datos del análisis acústico mostraron que la importancia, los problemas, y el beneficio del auxiliar auditivo, así como las características acústicas de las situaciones individuales variaban mucho entre los sujetos. Por lo tanto, además de la adaptación no lineal de los auxiliares auditivos, es deseable la existencia de clasificaciones adicionales de la señal, y de rasgos adaptativos de señal y de situación, dentro de los auxiliares auditivos modernos. Estos deberían ser compatibles con la gran variabilidad de los ambientes sonoros individuales de los sujetos con trastornos auditivos.

scholarly journals The Acoustic Environments in Which Older Adults Wear Their Hearing Aids: Insights From Datalogging Sound Environment Classification

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 594-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Sara E. Rogers ◽  
Anna K. Main ◽  
Dana L. Kinney
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Automatic Classification ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Sound Environment ◽  
Acoustic Environments

Purpose This report presents data on the acoustic environments in which older adults with age-related hearing loss wear their hearing aids. Method This is an observational study providing descriptive data from 2 primary datasets: (a) 128 older adults wearing hearing aids for an average of 6 weeks and (b) 65 older adults wearing hearing aids for an average of 13 months. Acoustic environments were automatically and continuously classified about every 4 s, using the hearing aids' signal processing, into 1 of 7 acoustic environment categories. Results For both groups, older adults wore their hearing aids about 60% of the time in quiet or speech-only conditions. The automatic classification of sound environments was shown to be reliable over relatively short (6-week) and long (13-month) durations. Moreover, the results were shown to have some validity in that the obtained acoustic environment profiles matched a self-reported measure of social activity administered prior to hearing aid usage. For a subset of 56 older adults with data from both the 6-week and 13-month wear times, the daily amount of hearing aid usage diminished but the profile of sound environments frequented by the wearers remained stable. Conclusions Examination of the results from the automatic classification of sound environments by the hearing aids of older adults provides reliable and valid environment classifications. The present data indicate that most such wearers choose generally favorable acoustic environments for hearing aid use.

Changes in Hearing-Aid Benefit Following 1 or 2 Years of Hearing-Aid Use by Older Adults

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow ◽  
Carolyn Garner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid benefit measures obtained from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers during the first year of hearing-aid usage. Benefit measures were obtained after 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year of hearing-aid use by all participants. In addition, follow-up measurements of hearing-aid benefit were performed on 49 of these same hearing-aid wearers following 2 years of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids that used linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Benefit measures included several objective tests of speech recognition, as well as the subjective self-report scales of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Hepler) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Although group means changed only slightly over time for all of the benefit measures, significant differences were observed for some of the benefit measures, especially among the subjective, self-report measures of benefit. In almost all of the cases exhibiting significant changes, performance was significantly worse (less benefit) at both the 6-month and 1-year post-fit interval compared to the measurements at 1 month post-fit. In general, the individual data from the 134 participants who were represented in the 1-year data set were consistent with the trends in the group data described above. Regarding longer term changes in benefit following 2 years of hearing-aid use, minimal changes were again observed. In all, there was little evidence for acclimatization of hearing-aid benefit in this study in either the group or the individual data.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Gender Differences in Audiological Findings and Hearing Aid Benefit in 255 Individuals with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder: A Retrospective Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 839-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijaya Kumar Narne ◽  
Prashanth Prabhu ◽  
Hunsur S. Chandan ◽  
Mahadeva Deepthi
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Acoustic Reflexes ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: There are many studies reported in the literature that have summarized audiological findings and possible rehabilitation in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). However, there are very few studies that have attempted to delineate the gender differences in audiological characteristics and hearing aid benefit in individuals with ANSD. Purpose: The study aimed to explore the differences between males and females in terms of demographic details, audiogram, speech identification scores, otoacoustic emissions, acoustic reflexes, long latency responses, and hearing aid benefit. Research Design: A retrospective study. Study Sample: A total of 255 individuals diagnosed with ANSD were selected for the study. The study included 137 females and 88 males. Data Collection and Analysis: The demographic details, results of diagnostic audiological testing, and hearing aid benefit were analyzed retrospectively. The differences in findings across gender were compared. Results: The study shows that females have a relatively higher degree of hearing loss and that the majority of females show a rising type of audiometric configuration. The study shows that females have poorer speech perception abilities and experience limited benefits from hearing aids compared to males. Conclusions: The results of the study show that there are gender differences in audiological findings and hearing aid benefits in individuals with ANSD. However, well-controlled prospective studies are essential to confirm the results obtained and to identify the possible mechanisms underlying the gender differences.

scholarly journals The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Mariya Yu. Boboshko ◽  
Irina P. Berdnikova ◽  
Natalya V. Maltzeva
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives -to determine the normative data of sentence speech intelligibility in a free sound field and to estimate the applicability of the Russian Matrix Sentence test (RuMatrix) for assessment of the hearing aid fitting benefit. Material and methods. 10 people with normal hearing and 28 users of hearing aids with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were involved in the study. RuMatrix test both in quiet and in noise was performed in a free sound field. All patients filled in the COSI questionnaire. Results. The hearing impaired patients were divided into two subgroups: the 1st with high and the 2nd with low hearing aid benefit, according to the COSI questionnaire. In the 1st subgroup, the threshold for the sentence intelligibility in quiet was 34.9 ± 6.4 dB SPL, and in noise -3.3 ± 1.4 dB SNR, in the 2nd subgroup 41.7 ± 11.5 dB SPL and 0.15 ± 3.45 dB SNR, respectively. The significant difference between the data of both subgroups and the norm was registered (p

scholarly journals Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Ted A. Meyer ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

Do Modern Hearing Aids Meet ANSI Standards?

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (08) ◽  
pp. 619-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jourdan T. Holder ◽  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Jill M. Gruenwald ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Input Noise ◽  
Release Times ◽  
Quality Control Testing ◽  
Equivalent Input Noise

Background: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) provides standards used to govern standardization of all hearing aids. If hearing aids do not meet specifications, there are potential negative implications for hearing aid users, professionals, and the industry. Recent literature has not investigated the proportion of new hearing aids in compliance with the ANSI specifications for quality control standards when they arrive in the clinic before dispensing. Purpose: The aims of this study were to determine the percentage of new hearing aids compliant with the relevant ANSI standard and to report trends in electroacoustic analysis data. Research Design: New hearing aids were evaluated for quality control via the ANSI S3.22-2009 standard. In addition, quality control of directional processing was also assessed. Study Sample: Seventy-three behind-the-ear hearing aids from four major manufacturers, that were purchased for clinical patients were evaluated before dispensing. Data Collection and Analysis: Audioscan Verifit (version 3.1) hearing instrument fitting system was used to complete electroacoustic analysis and directional processing evaluation of the hearing aids. Frye’s Fonix 8000 test box system (Fonix 8000) was also used to cross-check equivalent input noise (EIN) measurements. These measurements were then analyzed for trends across brands and specifications. Results: All of the hearing aids evaluated were found to be out of specification for at least one measure. EIN and attack and release times were the measures most frequently out of specification. EIN was found to be affected by test box isolation for two of the four brands tested. Systematic discrepancies accounted for ˜93% of the noncompliance issues, while unsystematic quality control issues accounted for the remaining 7%. Conclusions: The high number of systematic discrepancies between the data collected and the specifications published by the manufacturers suggests there are clear issues related to the specific protocols used for quality control testing. These issues present a significant barrier for hearing aid dispensers when attempting to accurately determine if a hearing aid is functioning appropriately. The significant number of unsystematic discrepancies supports the continued importance of quality control measures of new and repaired hearing aids to ensure that the device is functioning properly before it is dispensed and to avoid future negative implications of fitting a faulty device.

Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: the Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles

2002 ◽  
Vol 116 (S28) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Louise McDermott ◽  
Sunil N. Dutt ◽  
Elia Tziambazis ◽  
Andrew P. Reid ◽  
David W. Proops
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Patient Benefit ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
One Year ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

The Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid programme began in 1988 and by autumn 2000 a total of 351 patients had been fitted with such an aid. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hearing rehabilitation with the bone-anchored hearing aid. This was a prospective interview-based questionnaire study carried out in the autumn 2000. A total of 84 adult patients were interviewed. Each patient had worn their BAHA for more than one year.The questionnaire used during these interviews was the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP) and the Glasgow hearing aid difference profile (GHADP). This was first derived and validated by Gatehouse in 1999. The use of bone-anchored hearing aids was found to reduce the level of disability and handicap and provided the most patient benefit and satisfaction.

scholarly journals A Perspective on the Application of Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism in the Branding Process of Hearing Aid Retail Companies

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-146
Author(s):  
Florian Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Brand Identity ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Healthcare It ◽  
Relevant Role ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Retail Company

Objective – The aim of this paper is to develop a baseline guide for the branding of hearing aids for use by Hearing Aid Retail Companies. Methodology/Technique – The individual dimensions of Kapferer's brand identity prism were analyzed and practically applied to the branding process of a Hearing Aid Retail Company. Findings – Each dimension plays a relevant role in a consistent branding process. The study concludes that Hearing Aid Retail Companies, particularly smaller ones, should focus on branding due to increasing competition to remain competitive in the market. Novelty – This paper deals with the practical implementation of Kapferer's brand identity prism in the context of Hearing Healthcare. It offers Hearing Healthcare Professionals a framework for the branding process. Type of Paper: Secondary Article – Editorial / Perspective Piece. JEL Classification: M31, M37 Abbreviation: HARC - Hearing Aid Retail Company Keywords: Branding; Marketing; Hearing Healthcare; Kapferer´s Brand Identity Prism. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ross, F. 2020. A Perspective on the Application of Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism in the Branding Process of Hearing Aid Retail Companies, J. Mgt. Mkt. Review 5(3) 141 – 146. https://doi.org/10.35609/jmmr.2020.5.3(2)

scholarly journals Motion Sensors in Automatic Steering of Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 237-247
Author(s):  
Eric Branda ◽  
Tobias Wurzbacher
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Acoustic Sensors ◽  
Sound Sources ◽  
Acoustic Characteristics ◽  
Automatic Steering ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

AbstractA requirement for modern hearing aids is to evaluate a listening environment for the user and automatically apply appropriate gain and feature settings for optimal hearing in that listening environment. This has been predominantly achieved by the hearing aids' acoustic sensors, which measure acoustic characteristics such as the amplitude and modulation of the incoming sound sources. However, acoustic information alone is not always sufficient for providing a clear indication of the soundscape and user's listening needs. User activity such as being stationary or being in motion can drastically change these listening needs. Recently, hearing aids have begun utilizing integrated motion sensors to provide further information to the hearing aid's decision-making process when determining the listening environment. Specifically, accelerometer technology has proven to be an appropriate solution for motion sensor integration in hearing aids. Recent investigations have shown benefits with integrated motion sensors for both laboratory and real-world ecological momentary assessment measurements. The combination of acoustic and motion sensors provides the hearing aids with data to better optimize the hearing aid features in anticipation of the hearing aid user's listening needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document