scholarly journals Paired Comparisons of Nonlinear Frequency Compression, Extended Bandwidth, and Restricted Bandwidth Hearing Aid Processing for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 983-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
Ryan McCreery ◽  
Judy Kopun ◽  
Brenda Hoover ◽  
Joshua Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Nonlinear Frequency ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Forced Choice Task ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: Preference for speech and music processed with nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) and two controls (restricted bandwidth [RBW] and extended bandwidth [EBW] hearing aid processing) was examined in adults and children with hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if stimulus type (music, sentences), age (children, adults), and degree of hearing loss influence listener preference for NFC, RBW, and EBW. Research Design: Design was a within-participant, quasi-experimental study. Using a round-robin procedure, participants listened to amplified stimuli that were (1) frequency lowered using NFC, (2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the RBW of conventional hearing aid processing, or (3) low-pass filtered at 11 kHz to simulate EBW amplification. The examiner and participants were blinded to the type of processing. Using a two-alternative forced-choice task, participants selected the preferred music or sentence passage. Study Sample: Participants included 16 children (ages 8–16 yr) and 16 adults (ages 19–65 yr) with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss. Intervention: All participants listened to speech and music processed using a hearing aid simulator fit to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm v5.0a. Results: Children and adults did not differ in their preferences. For speech, participants preferred EBW to both NFC and RBW. Participants also preferred NFC to RBW. Preference was not related to the degree of hearing loss. For music, listeners did not show a preference. However, participants with greater hearing loss preferred NFC to RBW more than participants with less hearing loss. Conversely, participants with greater hearing loss were less likely to prefer EBW to RBW. Conclusions: Both age groups preferred access to high-frequency sounds, as demonstrated by their preference for either the EBW or NFC conditions over the RBW condition. Preference for EBW can be limited for those with greater degrees of hearing loss, but participants with greater hearing loss may be more likely to prefer NFC. Further investigation using participants with more severe hearing loss may be warranted.

scholarly journals Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (09) ◽  
pp. 823-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
Dawna Lewis ◽  
Ryan McCreery ◽  
Judy Kopun ◽  
Joshua M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Nonsense Word ◽  
Spectral Distortion ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Adults And Children

AbstractNonlinear frequency compression (NFC) can improve the audibility of high-frequency sounds by lowering them to a frequency where audibility is better; however, this lowering results in spectral distortion. Consequently, performance is a combination of the effects of increased access to high-frequency sounds and the detrimental effects of spectral distortion. Previous work has demonstrated positive benefits of NFC on speech recognition when NFC is set to improve audibility while minimizing distortion. However, the extent to which NFC impacts listening effort is not well understood, especially for children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL).To examine the impact of NFC on recognition and listening effort for speech in adults and children with SNHL.Within-subject, quasi-experimental study. Participants listened to amplified nonsense words that were (1) frequency-lowered using NFC, (2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the restricted bandwidth (RBW) of conventional hearing aid processing, or (3) low-pass filtered at 10 kHz to simulate extended bandwidth (EBW) amplification.Fourteen children (8–16 yr) and 14 adults (19–65 yr) with mild-to-severe SNHL.Participants listened to speech processed by a hearing aid simulator that amplified input signals to fit a prescriptive target fitting procedure.Participants were blinded to the type of processing. Participants' responses to each nonsense word were analyzed for accuracy and verbal-response time (VRT; listening effort). A multivariate analysis of variance and linear mixed model were used to determine the effect of hearing-aid signal processing on nonsense word recognition and VRT.Both children and adults identified the nonsense words and initial consonants better with EBW and NFC than with RBW. The type of processing did not affect the identification of the vowels or final consonants. There was no effect of age on recognition of the nonsense words, initial consonants, medial vowels, or final consonants. VRT did not change significantly with the type of processing or age.Both adults and children demonstrated improved speech recognition with access to the high-frequency sounds in speech. Listening effort as measured by VRT was not affected by access to high-frequency sounds.

scholarly journals Masking Release in Children and Adults With Hearing Loss When Using Amplification

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Brennan ◽  
Ryan McCreery ◽  
Judy Kopun ◽  
Dawna Lewis ◽  
Joshua Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Masking ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Masking Release ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Purpose This study compared masking release for adults and children with normal hearing and hearing loss. For the participants with hearing loss, masking release using simulated hearing aid amplification with 2 different compression speeds (slow, fast) was compared. Method Sentence recognition in unmodulated noise was compared with recognition in modulated noise (masking release). Recognition was measured for participants with hearing loss using individualized amplification via the hearing-aid simulator. Results Adults with hearing loss showed greater masking release than the children with hearing loss. Average masking release was small (1 dB) and did not depend on hearing status. Masking release was comparable for slow and fast compression. Conclusions The use of amplification in this study contrasts with previous studies that did not use amplification. The results suggest that when differences in audibility are reduced, participants with hearing loss may be able to take advantage of dips in the noise levels, similar to participants with normal hearing. Although children required a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio than adults for both unmodulated and modulated noise, masking release was not statistically different. However, the ability to detect a difference may have been limited by the small amount of masking release observed.

scholarly journals Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Identification in Children With Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Hillock-Dunn ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Nicole Duncan ◽  
Patricia A. Roush ◽  
Lori J. Leibold
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Nonlinear Frequency ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Identification

The S-SH Confusion Test and the Effects of Frequency Lowering

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 1486-1505
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Nonlinear Frequency ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Negative Side ◽  
Minimal Word ◽  
Low Pass ◽  
Negative Side Effects

PurposeFrequency lowering in hearing aids can cause listeners to perceive [s] as [ʃ]. The S-SH Confusion Test, which consists of 66 minimal word pairs spoken by 6 female talkers, was designed to help clinicians and researchers document these negative side effects. This study's purpose was to use this new test to evaluate the hypothesis that these confusions will increase to the extent that low frequencies are altered.MethodTwenty-one listeners with normal hearing were each tested on 7 conditions. Three were control conditions that were low-pass filtered at 3.3, 5.0, and 9.1 kHz. Four conditions were processed with nonlinear frequency compression (NFC): 2 had a 3.3-kHz maximum audible output frequency (MAOF), with a start frequency (SF) of 1.6 or 2.2 kHz; 2 had a 5.0-kHz MAOF, with an SF of 1.6 or 4.0 kHz. Listeners' responses were analyzed using concepts from signal detection theory. Response times were also collected as a measure of cognitive processing.ResultsOverall, [s] for [ʃ] confusions were minimal. As predicted, [ʃ] for [s] confusions increased for NFC conditions with a lower versus higher MAOF and with a lower versus higher SF. Response times for trials with correct [s] responses were shortest for the 9.1-kHz control and increased for the 5.0- and 3.3-kHz controls. NFC response times were also significantly longer as MAOF and SF decreased. The NFC condition with the highest MAOF and SF had statistically shorter response times than its control condition, indicating that, under some circumstances, NFC may ease cognitive processing.ConclusionsLarge differences in the S-SH Confusion Test across frequency-lowering conditions show that it can be used to document a major negative side effect associated with frequency lowering. Smaller but significant differences in response times for correct [s] trials indicate that NFC can help or hinder cognitive processing, depending on its settings.

FM Verification for the 21 st Century

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leisha Eiten ◽  
Dawna Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Current Technology ◽  
The Past ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: For children with hearing loss, the benefits of FM systems in overcoming deleterious effects of noise, distance, and reverberation have led to recommendations for use beyond classroom settings. It is important that audiologists who recommend and fit these devices understand the rationale and procedures underlying fitting and verification. Objectives: This article reviews previousguidelines for FM verification, addresses technological advances, and introduces verification procedures appropriate for current FM and hearing-aid technology. Methods: Previous guidelines for verification of FM systems are reviewed. Those recommendations that are appropriate for current technology are addressed, as are procedures that are no longer adequate for hearing aids and FM systems utilizing more complex processing than in the past. Technological advances are discussed, and an updated approach to FM verification is proposed. Conclusions: Approaches to verification andfitting of FM systems must keep pace with advances in hearing-aid and FM technology. The transparency approach addressed in this paper is recommended for verification of FM systems coupled to hearing aids.

Monitoring Progress for Children with Hearing Loss

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-81
Author(s):  
Monica Weston ◽  
Karen F. Muñoz ◽  
Kristina Blaiser
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Standardized Measures ◽  
Word Structure ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Outcomes For Children ◽  
Language Measures ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Purpose This study investigated average hours of daily hearing aid use and speech-language outcomes for children age 3 to 6 years of age with hearing loss. Method Objective measures of hearing aid use were collected via data logging. Speech and language measures included standardized measures GFTA-2, CELF Preschool-2 and additional item analyses for the word structure subtest CELF Preschool-2 and the GFTA-2. Results Hearing aid use was full time for 33% of the children (n=3; M=8.84 hours; Range: 2.9–12.1) at the beginning of the study, and for 78% at the end of the study (n=7; M=9.89 hours; Range 2.6–13.2). All participants demonstrated an improvement in articulation and language standard scores and percentiles however continued to demonstrate areas of weakness in sounds high-frequency in nature. Conclusions Through early identification and fitting, children gain access to speech sounds. Both standardized measures and individual language analysis should be used to identify and support children with hearing loss in language and subsequent literacy development.

Measurements of Loudness Growth in 1/2-Octave Bands for Children and Adults With Normal Hearing

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melisa R. Ellis ◽  
Michael K. Wynne
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Lower Boundary ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Boundary Values ◽  
Simple Modification ◽  
Point Data ◽  
Loudness Growth

The loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB) procedure has been shown previously to provide valid estimates of loudness growth for adults with normal hearing and those with hearing loss (Allen, Hall, & Jeng, 1990), and it has been widely incorporated into fitting strategies for adult hearing aid users by a hearing aid manufacturer. Here, we applied a simple modification of LGOB to children and adults with normal hearing and then compared the loudness growth functions (as obtained from end-point data) between the two age groups. In addition, reliability data obtained within a single session and between test sessions were compared between the two groups. Large differences were observed in the means between the two groups for the lower boundary values, the upper boundary values, and the range between boundaries both within and across all frequencies. The data obtained from children also had greater variance than the adult data. In addition, there was more variability in the data across test sessions for children. Many test-retest differences for children exceeded 10 dB. Adult test-retest differences were generally less than 10 dB. Although the LGOB with the modifications used in this study may be used to measure loudness growth in children, its poor reliability with this age group may limit its clinical use for children with hearing loss. Additional work is needed to explore whether loudness growth measures can be adapted successfully to children and whether these measures contribute worthwhile information for fitting hearing aids to children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document