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.     

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.     

Auditory localization under conditions of unilateral fitting of different hearing aid systems.

The spatial localization function of hearing-impaired listeners, usually fitted bilaterally with BTE, ITE or ITC devices, was tested under conditions of unilateral fitting of each of their own hearing aids, and unilateral fitting of stock versions of each of the other types. For the BTE wearers average localization accuracy and individual variability were not greatly changed when wearing only their left ear device, compared with bilateral aided performance. In ITE wearers, unilateral fitting in either ear led to somewhat poorer performance than bilateral. In the ITC wearers unilateral fitting produced inconsistent outcomes. Both BTE and ITE wearers fared poorly when fitted unilaterally with stock forms of devices 'foreign' to them, whereas ITC wearers did not show such a contrasting outcome. A group of non-impaired listeners showed severe disruption of localization under unilateral BTE and ITC hearing aid conditions, and to a lesser extent with ITEs. Results for the hearing-impaired listeners are interpreted in terms of adaptation to different usage patterns, with BTE wearers suggested as having adapted to their own systems unilaterally as well as bilaterally.     

A new hearing aid variant. Preliminary evaluation

An attempt was made to combine the advantages of a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid (trouble-free use, powerful amplification, room for high-quality components, space for large energy source, use of extra equipment), with the advantages of the in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid (improved intelligibility, improved directional hearing, improved signal/noise ratio). A BTE hearing aid was equipped with filters and provided with an external microphone. A first experiment, carried out in an anechoic chamber on KEMAR (Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustical Research), showed that directional variation of the frequency response of the hearing aid microphone was better in the new hearing aid than in the original BTE. A second experiment was carried out with a group of 6 normal-hearing persons concerning the frequency characteristic of sound transmission from twelve angles in the horizontal plane without a hearing aid, with a normal BTE aid, with the 'new aid', and with an ITE aid. The new instrument gave significantly better directional hearing than the original BTE aid. A clinical study will be started to verify and extend the experimental results obtained.     

Directivity and noise reduction in hearing aids: speech perception and benefit

Hearing aid.AimTo compare the performance, benefit and satisfaction of users of ITE, CIC and BTE digital hearing aid with noise reduction and omnidirectional and directional microphones.Method34 users of hearing aid were evaluated by means of speech perception in noise tests and APHAB and IOI self assessment questionnaires. Prospective study.ResultsBetter results were obtained by users of ITE, CIC and directional hearing aids, however, no statistical significance was found between the groups.ConclusionDirectivity improved speech perception in noise and benefit in daily life situations.     

Speech understanding and directional hearing for hearing-impaired subjects with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear hearing aids

With respect to acoustical properties, in-the-ear (ITE) aids should give better understanding and directional hearing than behind-the-ear (BTE) aids. Also hearing-impaired subjects often prefer ITEs. A study was performed to assess objectively the improvement in speech understanding and directional hearing afforded by ITE aids versus BTEs. In 28 hearing-impaired subjects, who visited our Centre for a check-up of their ITEs, the following parameters were measured: (a) thresholds for third-octave bandpass noises between 0.25 and 4 kHz, (b) speech reception thresholds for short Dutch sentences in quiet and with background noise, (c) directional hearing. All three experiments were done binaurally with the subjects wearing their ITEs, BTEs, and no hearing aid. With the 2-cc coupler, the gain used by the subject was measured. The SRT values for the ITE were significantly lower than those for BTE. More gain at 2 and 4 kHz in the ITE proved to be a responsible factor for this improvement. Directional hearing was not improved by wearing an ITE. Large interindividual differences were found between functional gain and the 2-cc coupler measurements. The mean functional gain at 4 kHz for an ITE is higher than the gain measured in a 2-cc coupler. For a BTE, the functional gain at 2 and 4 kHz is lower than the 2-cc coupler gain.     

The advantages and disadvantages of ITC, ITE and BTE hearing aids: diary and interview reports from elderly users

The advantages and disadvantages of in-the-canal (ITC), in-the-ear (ITE) and behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids for elderly aid users were examined. Two hundred and forty four clients were randomly assigned to one of the three aid types from seven hearing aid manufacturers. The clients' perceived help from their fitting, and the degree of difficulty they encountered over a range of listening situations and environments were rated using a daily diary and a structured interview. Findings indicated that for elderly clients there were no large practical advantages for one aid type over another. While ITC and ITE aids were rated more highly than BTE's in background noise, all three aid types were rated as relatively poor in background noise as well as in groups, in the wind, when using the telephone and in the localisation of sound. All three aid types were rated equally and well for performance in one-to-one conversation in quiet, and for listening to television and radio. Hours of use and reasons for non-use are presented, as are clients' reports on cosmetic issues, manipulative ease and overall satisfaction level with their aids.     

Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids

Speech recognition performance and self-reported benefit from linear analogue and advanced (digital) hearing aids were compared in 100 first-time hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid in a single-blind randomized crossover trial. Subjects used each aid for 5 weeks in turn, with aid order balanced across subjects. Three alternative models of digital hearing aid were assigned to subjects according to a balanced design. Aid type was disguised to keep subjects blind within practical limitations. Aided speech recognition performance in noise was measured at speech levels of 65 and 75dB at a speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +2dB for closed sets of single words. Self-rated benefit was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). Quality of life, hearing aid use and user preferences were also assessed. Speech recognition scores with the digital aids were significantly better at 75dB than with the analogue aids Self-reported benefit (APHAB, GHABP) and improvement in quality of life were generally not significantly different between analogue and digital aids, although aversiveness measured with the APHAB was significantly lower with digital aids, and satisfaction measured with the GHABP was greater. The digital aids were preferred significantly more often than the analogue aids, with 61 subjects choosing their digital aid, 26 choosing the analogue aid, and nine being equivocal. Overall, this study shows advantages for advanced digital over simple linear analogue aids in terms of both objective and subjective outcomes, although average differences are not large.     

Acoustic feedback margin improvements in hearing instruments using a prototype DFS (digital feedback suppression) system.

The properties of a prototype DFS (digital feedback suppression) system have been investigated. 21 ears fitted with behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing instruments and hard acrylic ear-moulds and 4 ears fitted with vented in-the-ear (ITE) hearing instruments were selected for the investigation. Two ITE instruments with different venting were employed to one of the ears. Complex loop gain has been measured in an anechoic room, and from these measurements the improvements in acoustic feedback margin due to the DFS system have been determined. For the BTE group, median values of 13.1 and 10.0 dB of improvement were established for two sets of measurements introducing a 180 degrees phase shift in connection with the last set of measurements. For the ITE group, values from 9.8 to 16.1 dB and from 13.7 to 16.3 dB of improvement were observed for the normal and the 180 degrees phase shift conditions respectively. Beyond this the DFS system may improve the sound quality to some extent, because the amplitude distortion, caused by the external feedback signal, is almost completely eliminated.     

Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids

Speech recognition performance and self-reported benefitfrom linear analogue and advanced (digital) hearing aidswere compared in 100 first-time hearing aid users withmild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid in a single-blind randomized crossover trial. Subjects usedeach aid for 5 weeks in turn, with aid order balancedacross subjects. Three alternative models of digital hearing aid were assigned to subjects according to a balanceddesign. Aid type was disguised to keep subjects blind within practical limitations. Aided speech recognition performance in noise was measured at speech levels of 65 and 75 dB at a speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) of _2 dB forclosed sets of single words. Self-rated benefit was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). Quality of life, hearing aid use and user preferences were also assessed. Speech recognition scores with the digital aids were significantly better at 75 dB than with the analogue aids. Self-reported benefit (APHAB, GHABP) and improvement in quality of life were generally not significantly different between analogue and digital aids, although aversiveness measured with the APHAB was significantly lower with digital aids,and satisfaction measured with the GHABP was greater. The digital aids were preferred significantly more often than the analogue aids, with 61 subjects choosing their digital aid, 26 choosing the analogue aid, and nine being equivocal. Overall, this study shows advantages for advanced digital over simple linear analogue aids interms of both objective and subjective outcomes, although average differences are not large.     

A comparison of different binaural hearing aid systems for sound localization in the horizontal and vertical planes

Three groups of hearing-impaired listeners who had been fitted binaurally with behind-the-ear (BTE), in-the-ear (ITE), or in-the-ear-canal (ITC) hearing aids were tested on spatial localization function for sources in the frontal horizontal and vertical planes. No significant differences in unaided performance were observed between the groups, nor between that and aided performance in the BTE and ITE wearers. ITC wearers, by contrast, showed a deterioration in aided over unaided performance. From observations of performance when each group wore temporary fittings of the other two types of system, and from the performance of a non-impaired control group, it appears that the performance decrement for the ITC wearers was due to their own particular systems although specific reasons for this decrement could not be identified. In all conditions, aided and unaided, vertical plane localization was markedly disrupted in all the hearing impaired groups. It was also disrupted, to a lesser but still substantial extent, in aided conditions for the non-impaired listeners.     

Gain and feedback problems when fitting behind-the-ear hearing aids to profoundly hearing-impaired children

Previous laboratory studies with severely and profoundly hearing-impaired persons aided with behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids have resulted in prediction rules for insertion gain and maximum gain without occurrence of acoustic feedback. The practicability of these findings was investigated in the present field trial with 21 profoundly deaf children fitted with power BTE hearing aids. In dialogue situations without background noise, the gain control settings were in accordance with the insertion gain prediction rule, whereas preferred gain may be 10 dB lower in the presence of noise. Consistent with the prediction rule for maximum gain without feedback and the gain response of the present test hearing aid, we observed oscillation in the high-frequency range in which the children had no remaining hearing. When the high-frequency gain was reduced, sufficient low-frequency gain could be provided without feedback problems.     

Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?

Abstract

Objective: Age-related hearing loss is an increasingly important public health problem affecting approximately 40% of 55–74 year olds. The primary clinical management intervention for people with hearing loss is hearing aids, however, the majority (80%) of adults aged 55–74 years who would benefit from a hearing aid, do not use them. Furthermore, many people given a hearing aid do not wear it. The aim was to collate the available evidence as to the potential reasons for non-use of hearing aids among people who have been fitted with at least one. Design: Data were gathered via the use of a scoping study. Study sample: A comprehensive search strategy identified 10 articles reporting reasons for non-use of hearing aids. Results: A number of reasons were given, including hearing aid value, fit and comfort and maintenance of the hearing aid, attitude, device factors, financial reasons, psycho-social/situational factors, healthcare professionals attitudes, ear problems, and appearance. Conclusions: The most important issues were around hearing aid value, i.e. the hearing aid not providing enough benefit, and comfort related to wearing the hearing aid. Identifying factors that affect hearing aid usage are necessary for devising appropriate rehabilitation strategies to ensure greater use of hearing aids.     

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

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.     

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.     

Hearing devices for children with unilateral hearing loss: Patient- and parent-reported perspectives

ObjectiveManagement of children with unilateral hearing loss is not standardized. The primary goal of this study was to elicit patient- and parent-reported perspectives regarding usage of hearing devices in pediatric UHL and to suggest a basic algorithmic approach to management.MethodsOur tertiary care center recruited families of youth ages 5–19 years with unilateral hearing loss from January 2014 through October 2015. Parents of all youths completed a 36-item survey, and some youth ages 11–19 years participated in hour-long interviews. We assessed patterns of hearing device usage among participants, and performed qualitative data analysis to understand factors considered by youths when deciding whether or not to use a hearing device.ResultsSurvey information was collected for 50 patients. Distribution of hearing loss severity in affected ear was mild 14%, moderate 26%, severe 22%, and profound 38%. The majority of children had sensorineural hearing loss (57%), followed by mixed (32%), and then conductive (11%). 34 children (68%) had tried a hearing device; 20 continued to use the device. Retention rates were similar among children with different degrees of hearing loss: mild 66%, moderate 50%, severe 60%, profound 64%. Sixteen children tried a wireless contralateral routing of signal (CROS) device, and 15 tried a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Retention rates for CROS and BTE devices were 69% and 47%, respectively. The most common reason for cessation of use was discomfort, followed by lack of benefit.ConclusionA majority of children with unilateral hearing loss who tried a hearing device continued to use it, and retention rates were similar across all degrees of hearing loss. These findings suggest that personal hearing devices should be included in management protocols.     

The "hearing aid effect" 2005: a rigorous test of the visibility of new hearing aid styles

PURPOSE: The visibility of open ear (OE) styles of hearing instruments was rigorously investigated for their potential to reduce the stigma of wearing hearing aids. METHOD: Three groups of 50 young adults (150 total) rated the visibility of 6 hearing aid styles-OE, invisible completely-in-the-canal (CIC), mini in-the-canal (m-ITC), half- and full-shell in-the-ear (ITE), and behind-the-ear (BTE)-worn by a peer model with revealing hairstyle, photographed from 2 ft and at 3 different angles (45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees). RESULTS: CIC was rated significantly most "invisible" at 45 degrees and 90 degrees, OE and m-ITC were next at those angles, and OE and BTE were least invisible at 135 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The findings have implications for counseling potential users who are reluctant to try hearing aids for cosmetic reasons.     

An audit of hearing aid quality in Denmark.

This investigation was aimed towards an evaluation of the quality of hearing aids, dispensed from a National Hearing Health Service. During a twelve month period all subjects attending the hearing aid servicing section were recorded, and the reason for the visit noted. A total of 4450 people attended (45% males, 55% females) with a median age of 71 years, range 8-99 years. Among these 60.4% of attendances could be ascribed to defective hearing aids. Among the defective hearing aids 20.6% had been used less than one year and 91.4% of the defective aids had been used less than four years, that is within the guarantee period. The recording demonstrated that specific series of aids have a defect rate of 6.6-70.9% within the first year of use. A comparison between the frequency of defects in different types of hearing aids (BTE, ITE, ITC and other hearing aids) was performed indicating that there is a risk of 8.6% that BTE will be defective within one year of provision. As 20.6% of the applicants' defective hearing aids had been used less than one year, it is concluded that the quality of hearing aids should be improved; the hearing aid manufacturers' main categories for fault finding can be used in the audiological departments within the National Hearing Health Service; the recording offers valuable data on the quality of hearing aids, and specifically poor series can be revealed within a limited period.     

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.