The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability handicap relationship,. along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

The Speech,Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability-handicap relationship, along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit

Hearing-impaired listeners with similar hearing losses may differ widely in their ability to understand speech in noise. Such individual susceptibility to noise may explain why patients obtain varying degrees of benefit from hearing aids. The chief purpose of this study was to determine if adaptive measures of unaided speech recognition in noise were related to hearing aid benefit. Additionally, the relationship between perceived hearing handicap and benefit from amplification was explored. Before being fit with hearing aids, 47 new hearing aid users completed a self-assessment measure of hearing handicap Then, unaided speech recognition ability was measured in quiet and in noise. Three months later, subjects completed a hearing aid benefit questionnaire. A weak relationship was observed between perceived hearing handicap and hearing aid benefit. There were no significant relationships between speech-in-noise measures and hearing aid benefit, suggesting that speech recognition ability in noise is not a major determinant of the benefit derived from amplification.     

Self-reported disability and handicap after hearing-aid fitting and benefit of hearing aids: comparison of fitting procedures, degree of hearing loss, experience with hearing aids and uni- and bilateral fittings

Self-reported outcome on hearing disability and handicap as well as overall health-related quality of life were measured after hearing-aid fitting in a large-scale clinical population. Fitting was performed according to two different procedures in a double-blind study design. We used a comparative procedure based on optimizing speech intelligibility scores and a strictly implemented fitting formula. Hearing disability and handicap were assessed with the hearing handicap and disability inventory and benefit of hearing aids with the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Effects on health-related quality of life and depression were assessed with the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and the geriatric depression scale. We found that hearing-aid fitting according to either procedure had a significantly positive effect on disability and handicap associated with hearing loss. This effect lasted for several months. Only the effect on disability persisted after 1-year of follow-up. Self-reported benefit from hearing aids was comparable for both fitting procedures. Unaided hearing disability was more pronounced in groups of participants with greater hearing loss, while the benefit of hearing aids was independent from the degree of hearing impairment. First-time hearing aid users reported greater benefit from their hearing aids. The added value from a bilateral hearing-aid fitting was not significant. Overall health-related quality of life and incidence of depression did not alter after hearing-aid fitting.     

Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004) was applied to three independent clinical groups: 144 people prior to being fitted with amplification; 118 people with six months experience with unilateral amplification; and 42 people with six months experience with bilateral amplification. For traditional speech hearing contexts (one-on-one, in groups, in quiet, in noise) there was benefit with one aid, and no further benefit with two. By contrast, hearing speech in demanding contexts (divided or rapidly switching attention) showed benefit with one aid and further benefit with two. In the spatial domain, directional hearing showed some benefit with one hearing aid, and particular further benefit in distance and movement discrimination from fitting with two. There was some benefit from unilateral fitting for elements of the qualities domains (clarity, naturalness, recognisability, segregation of sounds), with no consistent sign of further benefit from two. Bilateral fitting added benefit with respect to listening effort. Two hearing aids offer advantage in demanding and dynamic contexts; these contexts are argued as significant in the maintenance of social competence and emotional wellbeing. The present results go toward establishing the real-world advantages of bilateral hearing aid fitting and suggest that previous, inconclusive clinical findings reflect inquiry limited to more traditional areas of hearing function.     

Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study

Perceived benefit, satisfaction, and hearing aid use patterns were measured in a follow-up study to a large-scale multi-site clinical trial conducted in 1996-97. Measures included the Hearing Aid Status Questionnaire, the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life, and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. On the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, hearing aid users indicated more unaided difficulty in easy listening situations and less aided benefit in more difficult listening situations compared to the original study. Subjects who no longer used hearing aids indicated less difficulty in unaided situations. All measures indicated significant long-term subjective benefit and satisfaction with hearing aids. Although understanding speech in noise or in group situations continues to be problematic, subjects reported wearing their hearing aids almost all of the time in both easy and difficult listening situations.     

Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions.

Background noise is a significant factor influencing hearing-aid satisfaction and is a major reason for rejection of hearing aids. Attempts have been made by previous researchers to relate the use of hearing aids to speech perception in noise (SPIN), with an expectation of improved speech perception followed by an increased acceptance of hearing aids. Unfortunately, SPIN was not related to hearing-aid use or satisfaction. A new measure of listener reaction to background noise has been proposed. The acceptable noise level (ANL), expressed in decibels, is defined as a difference between the most comfortable listening level for speech and the highest background noise level that is acceptable when listening to and following a story. The ANL measure assumes that speech understanding in noise may not be as important as is the willingness to listen in the presence of noise. It has been established that people who accept background noise have smaller ANLs and tend to be "good" users of hearing aids. Conversely, people who cannot accept background noise have larger ANLs and may only use hearing aids occasionally or reject them altogether. Because this is a new measure, it was important to determine the reliability of the ANL over time with and without hearing aids, to determine the effect of acclimatization to hearing aids, and to compare the ANL to well-established measures such as speech perception scores collected with the SPIN test. Results from 50 listeners indicate that for both good and occasional hearing aid users, the ANL is comparable in reliability to the SPIN test and that both measures do not change with acclimatization. The ANLs and SPIN scores are unrelated. Although the SPIN scores improve with amplification, the ANLs are unaffected by amplification, suggesting that the ANL is inherent to an individual and can be established prior to hearing aid fitting as a possible predictor of hearing-aid use.     

Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit

An acceptable noise level (ANL) procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit was compared with masked speech reception threshold (SRT) and front-to-back ratio (FBR) procedures. ANL is the difference between the most comfortable listening level and the maximum accepted background noise level while listening to speech. Forty adult subjects wearing their own binaural hearing aids were evaluated in omnidirectional and directional modes. The subjects were fitted with a variety of hearing aids by clinical audiologists, independent of the study. For each procedure, speech and noise were presented through loudspeakers located at 0 degrees and 180 degrees azimuth, respectively. Mean ANL (3.5 dB), SRT (3.7 dB), and FBR (2.9 dB) directional benefits were not significantly different. The ANL and masked SRT benefits were significantly correlated. The ANL appears to be a quick, clinician/user friendly procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit.     

Hearing aid evaluation based on measures of benefit, use, and satisfaction

A comprehensive follow-up protocol was designed and utilized to assess benefit, use, and satisfaction from hearing aids. The benefit assessments included functional gain measures, and speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise. Hearing aid use was evaluated based on a questionnaire which asked for an estimate of daily use in hours and also an accounting of times when the aid was not in use during the day. Two use values were derived, an absolute daily use value and an adjusted percentage of use value. Satisfaction also was assessed using a questionnaire. The subjects were asked to indicate their general satisfaction with the aid on a seven-point scale. Two communication assessment questionnaires were used to assess communication handicap. Data are provided on 45 subject. The subjects were categorized into groups according to both low- and high-frequency hearing. These preliminary mean scores by group can be used as target goals for benefit, use, and satisfaction on persons fit with hearing aids. The protocol as used can provide considerable evaluative clinical information in a reasonable amount of time.     

Effect of venting the ear mold on speech discrimination in masking noise]

In this study the importance of in situ measurement during the fitting of a hearing aid is clearly emphasized. Reliable evaluation of the real ear gain can be achieved only with this method, and hence the assessment of the advantages of earmold modifications on the hearing aid. In particular, the gain can be evaluated by the person fitting the aid. The insertion of a vent into an earmold raises the listening comfort of the hearing-impaired person. The speech intelligibility in background noise may also improve. We analysed the effect of earmold venting on speech intelligibility under different background noise conditions. We found that venting improves the speech intelligibility, especially in background noise simulating modulated speech. Our example clearly demonstrates the importance of an exact control of the hearing aid fitting by the physician. In one case a vent ended at the ear canal wall so that no improvement of hearing comfort could be expected. A new earmold was made and the effect on insertion gain was demonstrated when enlarging the vent step by step.     

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.     

A multi-center,double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits

OBJECTIVE: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. DESIGN: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. RESULTS: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.     

Multi-microphone technology for severe-to-profound hearing loss

In this study the potential benefit of hearing instruments with multi-microphone technology was investigated in laboratory and in field tests for users with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Twenty-one experienced hearing aid users were fitted with high-power multi-microphone hearing instruments (Phonak PowerZoom P4 AZ). The following evaluations were performed: (i) adaptive speech test (SRT for HSM sentence test) in quiet and in noise with their own instrument and the test instrument in the omnidirectional (basic program) and directional mode (party noise profound+zoom algorithm). (ii) Paired comparisons of loudness, sound quality and speech intelligibility for both the omni and zoom program. (iii) Questionnaires on satisfaction and self-assessment of communication in different listening conditions (Oldenburg Inventory). Only 10 subjects achieved 50% correct (SRT) on the sentence test in noise (speech 0 degrees/noise 180 degrees) with both their own instrument and the test instrument in the omnidirectional mode. However, 15 subjects succeeded in the SRT measurement in the directional mode. The average SRT improvement of the directional over the omnidirectional mode was 13.7 dB. Loudness was judged 'medium loud' for both listening programs. Sound quality and intelligibility were rated significantly better for the zoom program. Compared to their own instrument users' satisfaction with the test instrument was significantly higher, especially in noisy listening situations.     

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.     

Correlates of successful hearing aid use in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether age, education, functional handicap, degree of hearing loss, amount of hearing and speech recognition gain achieved with hearing aid, locus of control, visual acuity, manual dexterity, number of comorbid diseases, and number of medications predict which elderly individuals with hearing loss are likely to benefit from hearing aids. DESIGN: A logistic regression prediction model for hearing aid benefit was developed on a training set of 89 individuals and verified in a test set of 87 individuals. Hearing aid success was assessed 4 mo after hearing aid adminstration. It was defined by assessing hearing aid satisfaction, functional handicap change post-hearing aid, and number of hours of weekly hearing aid use. SETTING: All patients were elderly male veterans from the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital. There were no differences in demographic or clinical characteristics in training versus test set individuals. RESULTS: Several variables, including baseline perceived functional handicap, education, number of medications, and age correlated with individual success measures. However, no variables consistently correlated with all success measures. The accuracy of prediction rules for success utilizing the variables ranged from 75 to 88% in the training set, and 54 to 84% in the test set. CONCLUSION: Although certain baseline factors were statistically significantly related to individual measures of successful hearing aid use, no factors were good enough to consistently differentiate successful from unsuccessful hearing aid candidates.     

Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids

Four patients who preferred monaural as compared with binaural amplification were evaluated. For these patients, audiometric data, recognition performance on a dichotic digit task, and monaural and binaural hearing aid performance using four amplification strategies (National Acoustic Laboratories-Revised, a speech in noise algorithm, multiple-microphone arrays, and frequency modulated [FM]) are described. The results of dichotic testing using a one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digit task in free- and directed-recall conditions indicated a left-ear deficit for all subjects that could not be explained by peripheral auditory findings or by a cognitive-based deficit. The results of soundfield testing using a speech in multitalker babble paradigm indicated that when listening in noise, there was little difference between aided and unaided word-recognition performance, suggesting that the binaural hearing aids originally fit for each patient were not providing substantial benefit when listening in a competing babble background. Word-recognition performance when aided monaurally in the right ear was superior to performance when aided monaurally in the left ear and when aided binaurally. The only successful binaural amplification strategy was the FM system. The results indicate that listeners with an auditory-based deficit in dichotic listening may function better with a monaural hearing aid fitting or with an assistive listening device such as an FM system. The findings also suggest that a test of dichotic listening is an important component in the evaluation of patients being considered for amplification.     

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.     

Hearing loss in over-65s: is routine questionnaire screening worthwhile?

It has been suggested that there is considerable unmet need in respect of hearing loss amongst the elderly population, but no routine screening test is currently used in general practice to identify these patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether routine questionnaire screening of the over-65s is a feasible way to identify elderly patients with hearing loss in primary care and whether patients so identified would benefit from hearing aid fitting. A cohort of patients consisting of a sample of 234 individuals aged between 65 and 74, attending a doctor's surgery over a specified period, received a scored questionnaire to complete based on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening test. Hearing aid owners and those with a hearing handicap were identified, and non-aid wearers with handicap offered examination and referral. Those patients who were fitted with aids were assessed after six months for aid usage and persisting handicap. Twenty-five per cent of the patient sample reported a previously undiagnosed hearing handicap. Six months after aid fitting, a reduction in hearing handicap was reported in 79 per cent of these cases and overall aid usage in the population sample had increased from nine per cent to 20 per cent. Routine questionnaire screening in general practice may be worthwhile since it is easy to carry out and the resulting intervention significantly reduces reported hearing handicap.