Effects of Coordinated Compression and Pinna Compensation Features on Horizontal Localization Performance in Hearing Aid Users

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
pp. 080-092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Denise Keenan ◽  
Jennifer Schumacher
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Localization Accuracy ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Localization Performance

Background: Hearing-impaired listeners localize sounds better unaided than aided. Wide dynamic range compression circuits operating independently at each ear in bilateral fittings, and microphone positions of different hearing aid styles, have been cited as a reason. Two hearing aid features, inter-ear coordinated compression (IE) and pinna compensation (PC), were developed to mitigate the compromised aided localization performance. Purpose: This study examined the effect of IE and PC on aided localization performance in the horizontal plane with hearing-impaired listeners. Research Design: A single-blind, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: A total of 10 experienced hearing aid users with bilaterally symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss who had previously participated in localization training were evaluated. Data Collection and Analysis: Localization performance was measured using 12 loudspeakers spaced 30° apart on the horizontal plane. Aided performance was evaluated using a behind-the-ear hearing aid at four settings: omnidirectional microphone (Omni), Omni microphone with the PC feature, Omni microphone with IE, and Omni microphone with the PC feature and IE together. In addition, unaided localization performance was measured. Results: Significant improvement in the localization accuracy was measured for sounds arriving from the back when comparing the PC with the Omni conditions. The use of IE reduced the magnitude of errors for some listeners for sounds originating from ±90°. The average reduction in the errors was 7.3°. Conclusions: This study confirmed that the use of the PC feature improved localization for sounds arriving from behind the listener. The use of IE may improve localization for some listeners for sounds arriving from the sides.

Evaluation of a Pinna Compensation Algorithm for Sound Localization and Speech Perception in Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Denise Keenan ◽  
Magnus Norgaard
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Pc Algorithm ◽  
Localization Performance

Purpose This study was designed to evaluate the effect of a pinna compensation (PC) algorithm on localization performance in the horizontal plane and speech intelligibility in noise. Method Nine and 18 experienced hearing aid users with bilaterally symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss participated in the localization study and the speech-in-noise study, respectively. Performance was evaluated unaided, aided with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid with an omnidirectional microphone (Omni), and aided with the same hearing aid with the PC algorithm (Omni+PC). Localization performance was measured using 12 loudspeakers spaced 30° apart on a horizontal plane. Speech-in-noise performance was measured with speech presented from 0° or 180°. A single-blinded, repeated measures design was used. Results Significant improvement in localization accuracy was found when comparing the Omni+PC condition to the Omni condition. Also, the Omni+PC condition improved the signal-to-noise ratio by 2.4 dB when compared to the Omni condition when speech was presented from the front in a diffuse noise background. Conclusion Use of the PC algorithm improved localization on the horizontal plane and speech-in-noise performance. These results support use of the PC algorithm in BTE hearing aid fittings.

The Effects of Receiver Placement on Probe Microphone, Performance, and Subjective Measures with Open Canal Hearing Instruments

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynzee N. Alworth ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Monika Bertges Reber ◽  
Patti M. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Subjective Measures ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing Instruments ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Occlusion Effect

Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as a way to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.

Effect of Adaptive Compression and Fast-Acting WDRC Strategies on Sentence Recognition in Noise in Mandarin-Speaking Pediatric Hearing Aid Users

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (04) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Haihong Liu ◽  
Yuanhu Liu ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Xin Jin ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
T Test ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Adaptive Compression ◽  
Fast Acting

AbstractWide dynamic range compression (WDRC) has been widely used in hearing aid technology. However, several reports indicate that WDRC may improve audibility at the expense of speech intelligibility. As such, a modified amplification compression scheme, named adaptive compression, was developed. However, the effect of compression strategies on speech perception in pediatric hearing aid users has not been clearly reported.The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of adaptive compression and fast-acting WDRC processing strategies on sentence recognition in noise with Mandarin, pediatric hearing aid users.This study was set up using a double-blind, within-subject, repeated-measures design.Twenty-six children who spoke Mandarin Chinese as their primary language and had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.Sentence recognition in noise was evaluated in behind-the-ear technology with both adaptive compression processing and fast-acting WDRC processing and was selected randomly for each child. Percent correct sentence recognition in noise with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression was collected from each participant. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the effect of gender, age at assessment, and hearing threshold of the better ear on signal-to-noise ratio, and a paired-samples t test was employed to compare the performance of the adaptive compression strategy and fast-acting WDRC processing.The mean percentage correct of sentence recognition in noise with behind-the-ear technology with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression processing were 62.24% and 68.71%, respectively. The paired-samples t test showed that the performance of the adaptive compression strategy was significantly better than the fast-acting WDRC processing (t = 3.190, p = 0.004).Compared with the fast-acting WDRC, adaptive compression provided better sentence recognition in noise for Mandarin pediatric hearing aid users.

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing Strategies on Consonant Recognition

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Plyler ◽  
Mark Hedrick ◽  
Brittany Rinehart ◽  
Rebekah Tripp
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Previous Experience ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Subjective Preference

Background: Both wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree (CF) processing strategies in hearing aids were designed to improve listener comfort and consonant identification, yet few studies have actually compared them. Purpose: To determine whether CF processing provides equal or better consonant identification and subjective preference than WDRC. Research Design: A repeated-measures randomized design was used in which each participant identified consonants from prerecorded nonsense vowel–consonant–vowel syllables in three conditions: unaided, aided using CF processing, and aided using WDRC processing. For each of the three conditions, syllables were presented in quiet and in a speech-noise background. Participants were also asked to rate the two processing schemes according to overall preference, preference in quiet and noise, and sound quality. Study Sample: Twenty adults (seven females; mean age 69.7 yr) with ≥1 yr of hearing aid use participated. Ten participants had previous experience wearing aids with WDRC, and 10 had previous experience with CF processing. Participants were tested with both WDRC and CF processing. Data Collection and Analysis: Number of consonants correct were measured and used as the dependent variable in analyses of variance with subsequent post hoc testing. For subjective preference, a listener rating form was employed with subsequent χ2 analysis. Results: Overall results showed that signal-processing strategy did not significantly affect consonant identification or subjective preference, nor did previous hearing aid use influence results. Listeners with audiometric slopes exceeding 11 dB per octave, however, preferred CF processing and performed better in noise with CF processing. Conclusion: CF processing is a viable alternative to WDRC for listeners with more severely sloping audiometric contours.

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing in Open Canal Hearing Instruments

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 126-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Monika Bertges Reber ◽  
Amanda Kovach ◽  
Elisabeth Galloway ◽  
Elizabeth Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Hearing Instruments

Background: Multichannel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree processing have similar goals yet differ significantly in terms of signal processing. Multichannel WDRC devices divide the input signal into separate frequency bands; a separate level is determined within each frequency band; and compression in each band is based on the level within each band. ChannelFree processing detects the wideband level, and gain adjustments are based on the wideband signal level and adjusted up to 20,000 times per second. Although both signal processing strategies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if differences in these signal processing strategies affect the performance and/or preference of the end user. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of multichannel wide dynamic range compression and ChannelFree processing on performance and/or preference of listeners using open-canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Fourteen adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two 5 wk trial periods for each signal processing strategy. Probe microphone, behavioral and subjective measures were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Behavioral and subjective results for both signal processing strategies were significantly better than unaided results; however, behavioral and subjective results were not significantly different between the signal processing strategies. Conclusions: Multichannel WDRC and ChannelFree processing are both effective signal processing strategies that provide significant benefit for hearing instrument users. Overall preference between the strategies may be related to the degree of hearing loss of the user, high-frequency in-situ levels, and/or acceptance of background noise.

The Effect of Presentation Level on Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners' Acceptable Speech and Noise Levels

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 017-025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Presentation Level ◽  
Different Levels

Background: Acceptable noise level (ANL) is a measure of the maximum amount of background noise that a listener is willing to “put up with” while listening to running speech. This test is unique in that it can predict with a high degree of accuracy who will be a successful hearing-aid wearer. Individuals who tolerate high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas individuals who do not tolerate background noise well are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. Purpose: Various studies have been unsuccessful in trying to relate ANLs to listener characteristics or other test results. Presumably, understanding the perceptual mechanism by which listeners determine their ANLs could provide an understanding of the ANL's unique predictive abilities and our current inability to correlate these results with other listener attributes or test results. As a first step in investigating this problem, the relationships between ANLs and other threshold measures where listeners adjust the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) according to some criterion in a way similar to the ANL measure were examined. Research Design and Study Sample: Ten normal-hearing and 10 hearing-impaired individuals participated in a laboratory experiment that followed a within-subjects, repeated-measures design. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were seated in a sound booth. Running speech and noise (eight-talker babble) were presented from a loudspeaker at 0°, 3 ft in front of the participant. Individuals adjusted either the level of the speech or the level of the background noise. Specifically, with the speech fixed at different levels (50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA), participants performed the ANL task, in which they adjusted the level of the background noise to the maximum level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. With the noise fixed at different levels (50, 60, 70, or 80 dBA), participants adjusted the level of the speech to the minimum, preferred, or maximum levels at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. Additionally, for the minimum acceptable speech level task, each participant was tested at four participant-specific noise levels, based on his/her ANL results. To emphasize that the speech level was adjusted in these measurements, three new terms were coined: “minimum acceptable speech level” (MinASL), “preferred speech level” (PSL), and “maximum acceptable speech level” (MaxASL). Each condition was presented twice, and the results were averaged. Test order and presentation level were randomized. Hearing-impaired participants were tested in the aided condition only. Results: For most participants, as the presentation level increased, SNRs increased for the ANL test but decreased for the MinASL, PSL, and MaxASL tests. For a few participants, ANLs were similar to MinASLs. For most test conditions, the normal-hearing results were not significantly different from those of the hearing-impaired participants. Conclusions: For most participants, stimulus level affected the SNRs at which they were willing to listen. However, a subset of listeners was willing to listen at a constant SNR for the ANL and MinASL tests. Furthermore, for these individuals, ANLs and MinASLs were roughly equal, suggesting that these individuals may have used the same perceptual criterion for both tests.

The Effects of Noise Reduction Technologies on the Acceptance of Background Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (08) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Jones Lowery ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: Directional microphones (D-Mics) and digital noise reduction (DNR) algorithms are used in hearing aids to reduce the negative effects of background noise on performance. Directional microphones attenuate sounds arriving from anywhere other than the front of the listener while DNR attenuates sounds with physical characteristics of noise. Although both noise reduction technologies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if the use of these technologies in isolation or together affects acceptance of noise and/or preference for the end user when used in various types of background noise. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of D-Mic, DNR, or the combination of D-Mic and DNR on acceptance of noise and preference when listening in various types of background noise. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Thirty adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were obtained using no noise reduction technologies, D-Mic only, DNR only, and the combination of the two technologies (Combo) for three different background noises (single-talker speech, speech-shaped noise, and multitalker babble) for each listener. In addition, preference rankings of the noise reduction technologies were obtained within each background noise (1 = best, 3 = worst). Results: ANL values were significantly better for each noise reduction technology than baseline; and benefit increased significantly from DNR to D-Mic to Combo. Listeners with higher (worse) baseline ANLs received more benefit from noise reduction technologies than listeners with lower (better) baseline ANLs. Neither ANL values nor ANL benefit values were significantly affected by background noise type; however, ANL benefit with D-Mic and Combo was similar when speech-like noise was present while ANL benefit was greatest for Combo when speech spectrum noise was present. Listeners preferred the hearing aid settings that resulted in the best ANL value. Conclusion: Noise reduction technologies improved ANL for each noise type, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline ANL value. Improving an ANL with noise reduction technologies is noticeable to listeners, at least when examined in this laboratory setting, and listeners prefer noise reduction technologies that improved their ability to accept noise.

scholarly journals Recognition and Localization of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Wearing a Digital Hearing Aid in the Nonimplanted Ear (Bimodal Hearing)

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (06) ◽  
pp. 353-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Margaret W. Skinner ◽  
Ruth A. Litovsky ◽  
Michael J. Strube ◽  
Francis Kuk
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bilateral Stimulation ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Loudness Growth ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Background: The use of bilateral amplification is now common clinical practice for hearing aid users but not for cochlear implant recipients. In the past, most cochlear implant recipients were implanted in one ear and wore only a monaural cochlear implant processor. There has been recent interest in benefits arising from bilateral stimulation that may be present for cochlear implant recipients. One option for bilateral stimulation is the use of a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the opposite nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of wearing a cochlear implant in one ear and a digital hearing aid in the opposite ear on speech recognition and localization. Research Design: A repeated-measures correlational study was completed. Study Sample: Nineteen adult Cochlear Nucleus 24 implant recipients participated in the study. Intervention: The participants were fit with a Widex Senso Vita 38 hearing aid to achieve maximum audibility and comfort within their dynamic range. Data Collection and Analysis: Soundfield thresholds, loudness growth, speech recognition, localization, and subjective questionnaires were obtained six–eight weeks after the hearing aid fitting. Testing was completed in three conditions: hearing aid only, cochlear implant only, and cochlear implant and hearing aid (bimodal). All tests were repeated four weeks after the first test session. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Significant effects were further examined using pairwise comparison of means or in the case of continuous moderators, regression analyses. The speech-recognition and localization tasks were unique, in that a speech stimulus presented from a variety of roaming azimuths (140 degree loudspeaker array) was used. Results: Performance in the bimodal condition was significantly better for speech recognition and localization compared to the cochlear implant–only and hearing aid–only conditions. Performance was also different between these conditions when the location (i.e., side of the loudspeaker array that presented the word) was analyzed. In the bimodal condition, the speech-recognition and localization tasks were equal regardless of which side of the loudspeaker array presented the word, while performance was significantly poorer for the monaural conditions (hearing aid only and cochlear implant only) when the words were presented on the side with no stimulation. Binaural loudness summation of 1–3 dB was seen in soundfield thresholds and loudness growth in the bimodal condition. Measures of the audibility of sound with the hearing aid, including unaided thresholds, soundfield thresholds, and the Speech Intelligibility Index, were significant moderators of speech recognition and localization. Based on the questionnaire responses, participants showed a strong preference for bimodal stimulation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a well-fit digital hearing aid worn in conjunction with a cochlear implant is beneficial to speech recognition and localization. The dynamic test procedures used in this study illustrate the importance of bilateral hearing for locating, identifying, and switching attention between multiple speakers. It is recommended that unilateral cochlear implant recipients, with measurable unaided hearing thresholds, be fit with a hearing aid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document