Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of low-threshold compression and hearing aid style (in-the-ear [ITE] versus behind-the-ear [BTE]) on the directional benefit and performance of commercially available directional hearing aids. DESIGN: Forty-seven adult listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss were fit bilaterally with one BTE and four different ITE hearing aids. Speech recognition performance was measured through the Connected Speech Test (CST) and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for a simulated noisy restaurant environment. RESULTS: For both the HINT and CST, speech recognition performance was significantly greater for subjects fit with directional in comparison with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids. Performance was significantly poorer for the BTE instrument in comparison with the ITE hearing aids when using omnidirectional microphones. No differences were found for directional benefit between compression and linear fitting schemes. CONCLUSIONS: No systematic relationship was found between the relative directional benefit and hearing aid style; however, the speech recognition performance of the subjects was somewhat predictable based on Directivity Index measures of the individual hearing aid models. The fact that compression did not interact significantly with microphone type agrees well with previously reported electroacoustic data.     

Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the overall listening benefit in diffuse noise provided by dual-microphone technology in an in-the-ear (ITE) hearing instrument to that provided by dual-microphone technology in a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing instrument. Further, the study was designed to determine whether the use of the dual-microphone + the manufacturer's party response algorithm in the ITE and BTE hearing instruments provided listening benefit in diffuse noise over their respective omnidirectional microphone modes. Twenty-four adults with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were evaluated while wearing binaural BTE and ITE hearing instruments. The results indicated that the dual-microphone + party response mode did provide significant benefit in diffuse noise for both the ITE (3.27 dB signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] improvement) and BTE (5.77 dB SNR improvement) hearing instruments relative to their respective conventional omnidirectional microphones. No significant difference in performance was found between the ITE and BTE hearing instruments when each device was in the dual-microphone + party response mode. It is concluded that the use of dual-microphone technology in both ITE and BTE hearing instruments can improve speech recognition in diffuse noise.     

The impact of head angle on monaural and binaural performance with directional and omnidirectional hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of head turn and monaural and binaural fittings on the sentence reception thresholds of hearing-impaired listeners wearing directional and omnidirectional hearing aids. DESIGN: Sentence reception thresholds were measured for 20 listeners fit monaurally and binaurally with behind-the-ear hearing aids set in both directional and omnidirectional modes. All listeners exhibited symmetrical, sloping, sensorineural hearing loss. The aided performance across these four fittings was evaluated for three different head and body angles. The three angles reflected body turns of 0 degrees, 15 degrees, and 30 degrees as measured relative to the primary sound source, with 0 degrees denoting the listener directly facing the sound source. Listeners were instructed to keep their heads in a fixed horizontal position and turn their heads and bodies to face visual targets at the three test angles. Sentences from the Hearing in Noise Test presented with a background of five, spatially separated, uncorrelated samples of cafeteria noise served as test material. All testing was performed in a moderately reverberant (Rt = 631 msec) "living room" environment. RESULTS: Participants generally performed significantly better when fit with directional versus omnidirectional hearing aids, and when fit binaurally versus monaurally across test conditions. The measured "binaural advantage" was reduced with increasing head angle. Participants performed significantly better with a 30 degree head angle than when directly facing the primary speaker. This "head turn advantage" was most prominent for monaural (versus binaural) conditions. Binaural and head turn advantages were not significantly different across directional and omnidirectional modes. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional support for the use of directional hearing aids and binaural amplification to improve speech intelligibility in noisy environments. The magnitude of these advantages was similar to that reported in previous investigations. The data also showed that hearing aid wearers achieved significantly better speech intelligibility in noise by turning their heads and bodies to a position in which they were not directly facing the sound source. This head turn advantage was in good agreement with the increase in Directivity Index with head turn and reflected the fact that hearing aids are generally most sensitive to sounds arriving from angles other than directly in front of the hearing aid wearer. Although these data suggest that many monaural hearing aid wearers may significantly improve speech intelligibility in noise through the use of head turn, the interaction between this advantage and the potential loss of visual cues with head turn is unknown.     

Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this experiment was to systematically examine hearing aid benefit as measured by speech recognition and self-assessment methods across omnidirectional and directional hearing aid modes. These data were used to compare directional benefit as measured by speech recognition in the laboratory to hearing aid wearer's perceptions of benefit in everyday environments across full-time directional, full-time omnidirectional, and user selectable directional fittings. Identification of possible listening situations that resulted in different self reported hearing aid benefit as a function of microphone type was a secondary objective of this experiment. DESIGN: Fifteen adults with symmetrical, sloping sensorineural hearing loss were fitted bilaterally with in-the-ear (ITE) directional hearing aids. Measures of hearing aid benefit included the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB), the Connected Sentence Test (CST), the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and a daily use log. Additionally, two new subscales were developed for administration with the PHAB. These subscales were developed to specifically address situations in which directional hearing aids may provide different degrees of benefit than omnidirectional hearing aids. Participants completed these measures in three conditions: omnidirectional only (O), directional only with low-frequency gain compensation (D), and user-selectable directional/omnidirectional (DO). RESULTS: Results from the speech intelligibility in noise testing indicated significantly more hearing aid benefit in directional modes than omnidirectional. PHAB results indicated more benefit on the background noise subscale (BN) in the DO condition than in the O condition; however, this directional advantage was not present for the D condition. Although the reliability of the newly proposed subscales is as yet unknown, the data were interpreted as revealing a directional advantage in situations where the signal of interest was in front of the participant and a directional disadvantage in situations where the signal of interest was behind the listener or localization was required. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory directional benefit is reflected in self-assessment measures that focus on listening in noise when the sound source of interest is in front of the listener. The use of a directional hearing aid mode; however, may have either a positive, a neutral, or a negative impact on hearing aid benefit measured in noisy situations, depending on the specific listening situation.     

Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of "simultaneous" bilateral cochlear implantation (both implants placed during a single surgical procedure) by comparing bilateral and unilateral implant use in a large number of adult subjects tested at multiple sites. DESIGN: Prospective study of 37 adults with postlinguistic onset of bilateral, severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Performance with the bilateral cochlear implants, using the same speech processor type and speech processing strategy, was compared with performance using the left implant alone and the right implant alone. Speech understanding in quiet (CNCs and HINT sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN Test) were evaluated at several postactivation time intervals, with speech presented at 0 degrees azimuth, and noise at either 0 degrees , 90 degrees right, or 90 degrees left in the horizontal plane. APHAB questionnaire data were collected after each subject underwent a 3-wk "bilateral deprivation" period, during which they wore only the speech processor that produced the best score during unilateral testing, and also after a period of listening again with the bilateral implants. RESULTS: By 6-mo postactivation, a significant advantage for speech understanding in quiet was found in the bilateral listening mode compared with either unilateral listening modes. For speech understanding in noise, the largest and most robust bilateral benefit was when the subject was able to take advantage of the head shadow effect; i.e., results were significantly better for bilateral listening compared with the unilateral condition when the ear opposite to the side of the noise was added to create the bilateral condition. This bilateral benefit was seen on at least one of the two unilateral ear comparisons for nearly all (32/34) subjects. Bilateral benefit was also found for a few subjects in spatial configurations that evaluated binaural redundancy and binaural squelch effects. A subgroup of subjects who had asymmetrical unilateral implant performances were, overall, similar in performance to subjects with symmetrical hearing. The questionnaire data indicated that bilateral users perceive their own performance to be better with bilateral cochlear implants than when using a single device. CONCLUSIONS: Findings with a large patient group are in agreement with previous reports on smaller groups, showing that, overall, bilateral implantation offers the majority of patients advantages when listening in simulated adverse conditions.     

Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS

OBJECTIVES: This study compared speech recognition performance on the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) and the Connected Speech Test (CST) for three hearing aid circuits (peak clipping [PC], compression limiting [CL], and wide dynamic range compression [WDRC]) in adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The study also questioned whether or not hearing aid benefit for the three circuits was dependent upon the speech level and the signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) and upon the degree and slope of hearing loss. DESIGN: Unaided speech recognition performance for NU-6 and CST materials presented from a loudspeaker at 0 degrees was measured during Visit 1, and both unaided and aided performance was measured at 3-mo intervals during Visits 2 to 4. The NU-6 was presented in quiet at a conversational speech level of 62 dB SPL. The CST was presented in 10 listening conditions-three S/B (-3, 0, and 3 dB) at each of three speech levels (soft speech at 52 dB SPL, conversational speech at 62 dB SPL, and loud speech at 74 dB SPL) and in quiet at 74 dB SPL. Uncorrelated multi-talker babble was presented from two loudspeakers at 45 degrees on each side of the main speaker. Hearing aid benefit was examined for 360 subjects divided into four groups of hearing loss, pure tone average <40 dB HL and slope <10 dB/octave or >10 dB/octave and hearing loss >40 dB HL for the two slope categories. RESULTS: Hearing aid benefit (aided minus unaided performance) measured on the NU-6 in quiet exceeded 31 rau for all three circuits. Although small statistical advantages were found for the WDRC, the differences were approximately 2% and are not considered clinically relevant. Unaided CST performance showed a complex relationship between presentation level and signal-to-babble ratio that was further confounded by the degree of hearing loss. For the two mild hearing loss groups and for each of the three nominal signal-to-babble ratios, CST performance decreased by 20 rau for the -3 dB S/B to 6 rau for the 3 dB S/B as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. In contrast, unaided performance increased by 32 to 13 rau with signal level for all signal-to-babble ratios for the two >40 dB hearing loss groups. Overall, aided CST performance exceeded unaided performance for all 10 conditions. As expected, hearing aid benefit was greatest (27 rau) for soft speech and smallest for loud speech (6 rau). Differences among the hearing aid circuits were small with only one significant difference; the WDRC at 62/0 was poorer by 3 rau than the other two circuits. When the CST data were analyzed as a function of hearing loss, five pair-wise comparisons were significant. In contrast to the unaided performance, aided performance for all hearing loss groups decreased as presentation level increased, even though the signal-to-babble ratio was constant. CONCLUSIONS: All three hearing aids circuits provided benefit over the unaided condition in both quiet and noise. The greatest benefit was measured for soft speech in the more severe hearing loss groups. Although only small differences were measured among the three hearing aid circuits, significant differences favored the PC and CL circuits over the WDRC in the mild hearing loss groups and favored the WDRC over the PC in the more severe, sloping hearing loss group. An interesting interaction between speech level, signal-to-babble ratio, degree of hearing loss, and amplification was found. For a constant signal-to-babble ratio, recognition performance decreased as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. The effect was most marked in the milder hearing loss groups and in the aided conditions, and occurred at even the lowest speech levels.     

Application of frequency importance functions to directivity for prediction of benefit in uniform fields

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current investigation was to systematically examine two of the assumptions central to the application of Articulation Index weighted Directivity Index (AI-DI) to the prediction of directional benefit across three groups of listeners differentiated by degree and configuration of hearing loss. Specifically, the assumption that (1) changes in speech recognition performance are predictable from frequency specific changes in calculated audibility after applying directivity index (DI) values and (2) applying appropriate frequency importance functions would increase the accuracy of AI-DI predictions of directional benefit were evaluated. DESIGN: The output of a single hearing aid for a speech in noise input was recorded to produce high and low directivity (directional and omnidirectional microphone modes) segments. These segments were then high-pass and low-pass filtered into low- and high-frequency regions and acoustically mixed to generate the eight frequency-specific directivity combinations. All recordings were made through an acoustic manikin placed in a single room, surrounded by five uncorrelated noise sources. The aided sentence recognition, in noise, for three groups of 12 adult participants with symmetrical sensorineural hearing impairment, was then measured across the eight listening conditions. The three groups were differentiated by degree and type of hearing loss including "sloping," "flat," and "severe" configurations.The frequency-specific DI values for each of the eight listening conditions were applied to the calculation of frequency specific noise levels. These corrected noise levels were then used to calculate an Articulation Index using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII, ). These SII values were then compared with measured speech recognition under the same eight listening conditions.Directional benefit values were then calculated by subtracting the performance of individual participants on the Connected Speech Test (CST) in omnidirectional mode from performance in all other filter conditions. The changes in average DI and AI-DI (using three different frequency importance functions) that existed between omnidirectional and the other seven filter conditions were then calculated for comparison to directional benefit values. RESULTS: The speech recognition data revealed a complex interaction between filter condition and group. Despite this interaction, highly significant positive correlations were found between participants' speech recognition scores and the corresponding SII calculation for all three hearing loss groups.Individual subjects' measured directional benefit was highly correlated with changes in DI. Similar correlations were found for average DI and all three AI-DI weighting methods. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, performance and calculated SII values were in good agreement across conditions supporting the hypothesis that DI provides a reasonable frequency-specific estimate of signal-to-noise ratio changes in the test environment. The results further support the use of AI-DI or average DI for prediction of directional benefit. The choice of importance weighting across frequency (flat or frequency importance function based), however, did not improve the accuracy of these predictions; therefore, a simple average DI is advocated. Further, the prediction of absolute directional benefit across hearing loss groups from traditional AI-DI calculations may lead to error if the negative effects of hearing loss on speech understanding, and how these effects vary with degree of hearing loss, are not considered as a contributing factor.     

Predictability of speech-in-noise performance from real ear measures of directional hearing AIDS

OBJECTIVE: Inability to understand speech in noise has been cited repeatedly as the principal complaint of hearing aid users. While data exist documenting the benefit provided by hearing aids with directional microphones when listening to speech in noise, little work has been done to develop a standard clinical protocol for fitting these hearing aids. Our goal was to evaluate a clinical measure of the acoustic directivity of a directional hearing aid, including its association with a test of speech perception in noise. DESIGN: The performance of two commercially available directional behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids was evaluated using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Real Ear Aided Response (REAR) on 24 adult participants with symmetric, mild to moderately severe, sensorineural hearing loss. The HINT was conducted with the speech signal presented from 0 degrees and the noise from 180 degrees and either 135 degrees or 225 degrees, depending on the ear tested. REAR was measured at the above three angles using swept pure tones, and these measures were used to compute in situ directivity for each subject and hearing aid. CONCLUSIONS: Directional benefit for the HINT was greatest when noise was presented from the azimuth of the published polar diagram null of a given hearing aid in its directional mode (180 or 135/225 degrees). The only significant correlation between HINT and REAR results, however, was found when the noise source was at 180 degrees. These results confirm the validity of using real ear measures as a way to assess directionality in situ, but also indicate the complexity of predicting perceptual benefit from them. These data suggest that factors beyond acoustic directionality may contribute to improvement in speech perception in noise when such improvements are found.     

Assessing spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: a translational approach

Under natural conditions, listeners use both auditory and visual speech cues to extract meaning from speech signals containing many sources of variability. However, traditional clinical tests of spoken word recognition routinely employ isolated words or sentences produced by a single talker in an auditory-only presentation format. The more central cognitive processes used during multimodal integration, perceptual normalization, and lexical discrimination that may contribute to individual variation in spoken word recognition performance are not assessed in conventional tests of this kind. In this article, we review our past and current research activities aimed at developing a series of new assessment tools designed to evaluate spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. These measures are theoretically motivated by a current model of spoken word recognition and also incorporate "real-world" stimulus variability in the form of multiple talkers and presentation formats. The goal of this research is to enhance our ability to estimate real-world listening skills and to predict benefit from sensory aid use in children with varying degrees of hearing loss.     

Predicted and measured speech recognition performance in noise with linear amplification

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) in hearing aid fitting. It was hypothesized that estimated speech intelligibility, based on the SII, could be a more reliable measure than real speech recognition results for comparing hearing aid characteristics. DESIGN: The test subjects were 29 elderly persons (66 to 80 yr) with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, who were using monaurally fitted linear hearing aids. They were selected from the files at Sahlgrenska hearing clinic. Speech recognition scores were obtained at fixed speech-to-noise ratios with Phonemically Balanced (PB) words in speech-weighted noise and in low-frequency noise. A Just-Follow-Conversation (JFC) test was performed with connected speech presented in the same background noises. The subjects were tested without hearing aid and with their hearing aids set at three different frequency responses. Predicted speech recognition scores were calculated for each condition based on the SII, complemented with a correction for sensorineural hearing impairment. The calculations involved speech and noise spectra, pure tone thresholds and insertion gain responses. RESULTS: For each condition, the measured speech recognition scores were, on average, well predicted by the calculated scores. The intra-individual standard deviation of the predicted scores was estimated to be about one percent unit. The group results of the JFC test were in agreement with the word recognition results for the aided conditions, but a floor effect was observed for the unaided conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Speech intelligibility prediction based on the modified SII is a valid estimate of speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired persons with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Estimated intelligibility based on the SII is more reliable than actually measured speech recognition performance, for comparing amplification conditions within subjects.     

Evaluation of an adaptive,directional-microphone hearing aid

The effectiveness of adaptive directional processing for improvement of speech recognition in comparison to non-adaptive directional and omni-directional processing was examined across four listening environments intended to simulate those found in the real world. The test environment was a single, moderately reverberant room with four loudspeaker configurations: three with fixed discrete noise source positions and one with a single panning noise source. Sentence materials from the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and Connected Speech Test (CST) were selected as test materials. Speech recognition across all listening conditions was evaluated for 20 listeners fitted binaurally with Phonak Claro behind-the-ear (BTE) style hearing aids. Results indicated improved speech recognition performance with adaptive and non-adaptive directional processing over that measured with the omnidirectional processing across all four listening conditions. While the magnitudes of directional benefit provided to subjects listening in adaptive and fixed directional modes were similar in some listening environments, a significant speech recognition advantage was measured for the adaptive mode in specific conditions. The advantage for adaptive over fixed directional processing was most prominent when a competing noise was presented from the listener's sides (both fixed and panning noise conditions), and was partially predictable from electroacoustically measured directional pattern data.     

Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise.

Speech recognition in noise improves when speech and noise sources are separated in space. This benefit has two components whose effects are strongest in different frequency regions: (1) interaural level differences (e.g., head shadow), which are largest at higher frequencies, and (2) interaural time differences, which have their greatest contribution at lower frequencies. Binaural interactions enhance the separation of signals from noise through the use of these interaural differences. Here, the benefit attributable to spatial separation was measured as a function of the low- and high-pass cutoff frequency of speech and noise. Listeners were younger adults with normal hearing, older adults with normal hearing, and older adults with hearing loss. Binaural thresholds for narrowband noises were measured in quiet and in a speech-shaped masker as a function of masker low-pass cutoff frequency. Speech levels corresponding to 50% correct recognition of sentences from the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) were measured in a 65-dB SPL speech-shaped noise. Thresholds for narrowband noises and for speech were measured with two loudspeaker configurations: (1) signals and speech-shaped noise at 0 degrees azimuth (in front of the listener) and (2) signals at 0 degrees azimuth and speech-shaped noise at 90 degrees azimuth (at the listener's side). The criterion measure was spatial separation benefit, or the difference in thresholds for the two conditions. Benefit of spatial separation for unfiltered speech averaged 6.1 dB for younger listeners with normal hearing, 4.9 dB for older listeners with normal hearing, and 2.7 dB for older listeners with hearing loss. Benefit was differentially affected by low-pass and high-pass filtering, suggesting a trade-off of the contributions of higher frequency interaural level differences and lower frequency interaural timing cues. As expected, older listeners with hearing loss benefited little from the improved signal-to-noise ratios in the higher frequencies resulting from head shadow, but showed some benefit from lower frequency cues. Spatial benefit for older listeners with normal hearing was reduced relative to benefit for younger listeners. This result may be related to older listeners' elevated thresholds at frequencies above 6.0 kHz.     

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study

CONCLUSIONS: Our study data demonstrate the additional benefit derived from continued use of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) post-cochlear implantation for speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise. Postoperative bimodal stimulation is recommended for all subjects who show some speech recognition ability in the contralateral ear as it may offer binaural listening advantages in various listening situations encountered in everyday life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits derived from bimodal stimulation for experienced HA users implanted with a cochlear implant (CI) (score=20% in disyllabic test). The correlation between pre- and postoperative performance on speech perception measures was examined to determine additional criteria for recommending bimodal stimulation postoperatively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A within-subject repeated-measures design was used, with each subject acting as their own control. Assessments were carried out preoperatively in aided monaural and best-aided conditions and at 6 months postoperatively in CI-alone, contralateral HA-alone and bimodal listening conditions. Speech recognition using Spanish words and sentences materials was assessed at conversational level and for soft speech in quiet. Speech comprehension in noise was assessed using word materials at a signal:noise ratio of +10, for coincident speech in noise and for spatially separated speech in noise. Twelve adult native Spanish subjects with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment who were experienced with optimally fitted conventional amplification and who displayed suboptimal speech understanding preoperatively were enrolled in the study. Preoperatively, conventional amplification was worn by five subjects binaurally and by seven monaurally. RESULTS: Postoperatively, superior speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise for disyllabic words was achieved using bimodal stimulation in comparison to performance for either monaural aided condition. Mean improvement in speech recognition in the bimodal condition was significant over performance in the CI-alone condition for disyllabic words in quiet at 70 (p=0.006) and 55 dB SPL (p=0.028), for disyllabic words in noise at +10 dB with speech and noise spatially separated with the noise source closest to the contralateral HA (S0NHA) (p=0.0005) and when the noise source was closest to the CI ear (S0NCI) (p=0.002). When testing word recognition in noise with speech and noise sources coincident in space, word scores were superior in the bimodal condition relative to the CI-alone condition but this improvement was not significant (p=0.07). The advantages of bimodal stimulation included significant effects of binaural summation in quiet and significant binaural squelch effects in both the S0NHA and S0NCI test conditions. All subjects showed superior performance in the binaural situation postoperatively relative to the best-aided condition preoperatively for one or more test situations.     

The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users’ manual selection of listening programs

Objective: To compare preference for and performance of manually selected programmes to an automatic sound classifier, the Phonak AutoSense OS. Design: A single blind repeated measures study. Participants were fit with Phonak Virto V90 ITE aids; preferences for different listening programmes were compared across four different sound scenarios (speech in: quiet, noise, loud noise and a car). Following a 4-week trial preferences were reassessed and the users preferred programme was compared to the automatic classifier for sound quality and hearing in noise (HINT test) using a 12 loudspeaker array. Study sample: Twenty-five participants with symmetrical moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Results: Participant preferences of manual programme for scenarios varied considerably between and within sessions. A HINT Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) advantage was observed for the automatic classifier over participant’s manual selection for speech in quiet, loud noise and car noise. Sound quality ratings were similar for both manual and automatic selections. Conclusions: The use of a sound classifier is a viable alternative to manual programme selection.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise,with and without hearing aids

Speech recognition and cognitive functions important for speech understanding were evaluated by objective measures and by scores of perceived effort, with and without hearing aids. The tests were performed in silence, and with background conditions of speech spectrum random noise and ordinary speech. One young and one elderly group of twelve hearing-impaired subjects each participated. Hearing aid use improved speech recognition in silence (7 dB) and in the condition with speech as background (2.5 dB S/N), but did not change the perceived effort scores. In the cognitive tests no hearing aid benefit was seen in objective measures, while there was an effect of hearing aid use in scores of perceived effort, subjects reported less effort. There were no age effects on hearing aid benefit. In conclusion, hearing aid use may result in reduced effort in listening tasks that is not associated with improvement in objective scores.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids

Speech recognition and cognitive functions important for speech understanding were evaluated by objective measures and by scores of perceived effort, with and without hearing aids. The tests were performed in silence, and with background conditions of speech spectrum random noise and ordinary speech. One young and one elderly group of twelve hearing-impaired subjects each participated. Hearing aid use improved speech recognition in silence (7 dB) and in the condition with speech as background (2.5 dB S/N), but did not change the perceived effort scores. In the cognitive tests no hearing aid benefit was seen in objective measures, while there was an effect of hearing aid use in scores of perceived effort, subjects reported less effort. There were no age effects on hearing aid benefit. In conclusion, hearing aid use may result in reduced effort in listening tasks that is not associated with improvement in objective scores.     

Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems

The major consequence of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is communicative difficulty, especially with the addition of noise and/or reverberation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare two types of technologies that have been shown to improve the speech-perception performance of individuals with SNHL: directional microphones and frequency modulation (FM) systems. Forty-six adult subjects with slight to severe SNHL served as subjects. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) with correlated diffuse noise under five different listening conditions. Results revealed that speech perception was significantly better with the use of the FM system over that of any of the hearing aid conditions, even with the use of the directional microphone. Additionally, speech perception was significantly better with the use of two hearing aids used in conjunction with two FM receivers rather than with just one FM receiver. Directional microphone performance was significantly better than omnidirectional microphone performance. All aided listening conditions were significantly better than the unaided listening condition.     

Noise reduction hearing aids: release from masking and release from distortion.

Automatic frequency response (AFR) hearing aids usually reduce their low-frequency gain in the presence of noise; several investigators have reported improved recognition of high-frequency speech information in low-frequency band-limited noise with AFR versus non-AFR hearing aids. In this work, masking patterns (masked threshold for frequency-modulated probe tones as a function of probe frequency) were obtained for a narrowband low-frequency noise. Speech recognition threshold for a set of high-frequency loaded monosyllables also was obtained in the presence of the same noise. Aided speech and masking pattern data for one normal and two hearing-impaired subjects wearing a master hearing aid incorporating a commercially available AFR circuit showed modest AFR effects. Moreover, masking noise spectra measured in ear canals of subjects wearing the master hearing aid showed evidence of substantial hearing aid-generated distortion products in the AFR-off condition. Results obtained from the normal subject listening with a low-distortion laboratory simulation of an AFR hearing aid showed greater release from masking for the same low-frequency attenuation as provided by the hearing aid. Improvements of speech recognition in noise observed with AFR hearing aids may result from some combination of release from upward spread of masking and reduction of distortion products generated by the hearing aid in the non-AFR setting.     

A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Abstract

To evaluate whether speech recognition in noise differs according to whether a wireless remote microphone is connected to just the cochlear implant (CI) or to both the CI and to the hearing aid (HA) in bimodal CI users. The second aim was to evaluate the additional benefit of the directional microphone mode compared with the omnidirectional microphone mode of the wireless microphone. This prospective study measured Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) in babble noise in a ‘within-subjects repeated measures design’ for different listening conditions. Eighteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. No difference in speech recognition in noise in the bimodal listening condition was found between the wireless microphone connected to the CI only and to both the CI and the HA. An improvement of 4.1?dB was found for switching from the omnidirectional microphone mode to the directional mode in the CI only condition. The use of a wireless microphone improved speech recognition in noise for bimodal CI users. The use of the directional microphone mode led to a substantial additional improvement of speech perception in noise for situations with one target signal.     

Directional hearing aid benefit in listeners with severe hearing loss

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the potential for directional hearing aid benefit in listeners with severe hearing loss at multiple SNRs for both auditory only and audio-visual presentation modes. Speech recognition performance was measured using the connected speech test at six SNRs individually determined for each subject in order to avoid floor and ceiling effects. The results revealed significant directional benefit was present at all tested SNRs in the presence of visual information. For auditory only presentations, significant directional benefit was only present at the least positive SNR. The largest directional benefit was measured at the poorest tested SNR for both auditory only and audiovisual presentation modes. The results of this study generally support small but significant directional for listeners with severe hearing loss benefit in a difficult listening environment both with and without the presence of visual information.