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 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.     

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.     

Factors affecting the use and perceived benefit of ITE and BTE hearing aids.

The aim of the present study was to investigate factors that might affect hearing aid use, satisfaction and perceived benefit. A further aim was to look at which variables affect the choice of hearing aid, in particular, an in-the-ear (ITE) versus a behind-the-ear (BTE) device. Twenty-nine elderly hearing-impaired people with a mild-to-moderate hearing loss were fitted with both an ITE and a BTE hearing aid with similar electroacoustic performance. Both hearing aids were linear with output compression limiting and were fitted in a randomized order. After wearing each device for a six-week period, subj ets were asked to select the hearing aid they preferred. Variables significantly related to hearing aid choice, use and perceived benefit included ease of management, accuracy with which the NAL-R insertion gain target was achieved, earmould comfort and the type of hearing aid the client preferred initially.     

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.     

Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics.

In this study, two types of hearing aids were used. Both aids had the same frequency characteristics for frontal sound, but one employed an omnidirectional microphone and the other a directional microphone. The frequency characteristics of both hearing aids were measured for five azimuths on KEMAR and in situ in 12 normal-hearing subjects. For these subjects we also determined the speech reception threshold (SRT) with background noise in two rooms with different reverberation times. The direction of the speech stimuli was always frontal; the direction of the noise was varied. Additionally, directional hearing was measured with short noise bursts from eight loudspeakers surrounding the subject. In the less reverberant room, sounds coming from behind were less amplified by the hearing aid with the directional microphone than by the one with the omnidirectional microphone. In this room the monaural SRT values were largely determined by the level of the background noise. For the directional hearing aids there was an extra binaural advantage which depended on the direction of the background noise. Only for low-frequency noise bursts was directional hearing better with directional hearing aids. In the more reverberant room, no distinct differences between the frequency characteristics of the two hearing aid types were measured. However, a systematic difference between monaural SRT values measured through the two hearing aids was found. This difference was independent of noise azimuth. In conclusion, hearing aid(s) with a directional microphone showed no disadvantages and clear advantages under specific conditions.     

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.     

Directivity of different hearing aid microphone locations

In this study, we present a new method to derive a single-number measure of the directivity of hearing aids. The method is an extension of the conventional directivity index (DI), and is called overall directivity index (ODI). The directivities of five different hearing aid styles were compared with that of the open ear. The behind-the-ear (BTE) style showed the lowest directionality compared to the other hearing aid styles and the open ear. There were only minor differences in directivity between any of the four different hearing aid styles placed in the ear and of the open ear canal. The conventional measure of DI is less suitable for hearing aids, because it ignores sound coming from other than the frontal direction. To quantify directionality of a hearing aid in a real-life situation, we suggest the single-number ODI, weighted with the articulation index and related to a listening segment of 0-30 degrees. An application of the data is shown for a BTE with a directional microphone.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of changes in head angle on auditory and visual input for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aids

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0 degrees, 20 degrees, and 40 degrees. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20 degrees and 40 degrees head angles when compared to 0 degrees. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20 degrees head angle when compared to 0 degrees. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40 degrees head angle when compared to 0 degrees. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.     

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.     

Randomized trial of amplification strategies

BACKGROUND: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. PATIENTS: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as "service connected," which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. INTERVENTION: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ("conventional") or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ("programmable"). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). RESULTS: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P<.001 by the analysis of variance test). Qualitative analyses of free-text diary entries, self-reported communication ability (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) scores, adherence to hearing aid use, and willingness to pay for replacement devices showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: A programmable hearing aid with a directional microphone had the highest level of effectiveness in the veteran population. A nonprogrammable hearing aid with an omnidirectional microphone was also effective compared with an assistive listening device or no amplification.     

The robustness of hearing aid microphone preferences in everyday listening environments

Automatic directionality algorithms currently implemented in hearing aids assume that hearing-impaired persons with similar hearing losses will prefer the same microphone processing mode in a specific everyday listening environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the robustness of microphone preferences in everyday listening. Two hearing-impaired persons made microphone preference judgments (omnidirectional preferred, directional preferred, no preference) in a variety of everyday listening situations. Simultaneously, these acoustic environments were recorded through the omnidirectional and directional microphone processing modes. The acoustic recordings were later presented in a laboratory setting for microphone preferences to the original two listeners and other listeners who differed in hearing ability and experience with directional microphone processing. The original two listeners were able to replicate their live microphone preferences in the laboratory with a high degree of accuracy. This suggests that the basis of the original live microphone preferences were largely represented in the acoustic recordings. Other hearing-impaired and normal-hearing participants who listened to the environmental recordings also accurately replicated the original live omnidirectional preferences; however, directional preferences were not as robust across the listeners. When the laboratory rating did not replicate the live directional microphone preference, listeners almost always expressed no preference for either microphone mode. Hence, a preference for omnidirectional processing was rarely expressed by any of the participants to recorded sites where directional processing had been preferred as a live judgment and vice versa. These results are interpreted to provide little basis for customizing automatic directionality algorithms for individual patients. The implications of these findings for hearing aid design are discussed.     

Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids

In this study speech intelligibility in background noise was evaluated with 10 binaural hearing-aid users for hearing aids with one omnidirectional microphone and a hearing aid with a two-microphone configuration (enabling an omnidirectional as well as a directional mode). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements were carried out for three different types of background noise (speech-weighted noise, traffic noise and restaurant noise) and two kinds of speech material (bisyllabic word lists and sentences). The average SNR improvement of the directional microphone configuration relative to the omnidirectional one was 3.4 dB for noise presented from 90 degrees azimuth. This improvement was independent of the specific type of noise and speech material, indicating that one speech-in-noise condition may yield enough relevant information in the evaluation of directional microphones and speech understanding in noise.     

How directional microphones affect speech recognition,listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of directional microphone use on laboratory measures of sentence recognition, listening effort and localisation. An additional purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of asymmetric directional microphone use on the same laboratory measures. Design: Three hearing aid conditions were evaluated: (1) bilateral omnidirectional microphones, (2) bilateral directional microphones and (3) asymmetric microphones (directional microphone for only one hearing aid). Sentence recognition performance was evaluated using a connected speech test. Listening effort was evaluated using a dual-task paradigm with a response time-based secondary task requiring word categorisation. Localisation was examined using a complex task requiring localisation and recall of speech originating from one of four loudspeakers in the horizontal plane (?60°, ?45°,?+45°,?+60°). Study sample: Eighteen adults (M?=?61.8 years) with symmetrical, moderate-to-severe hearing loss participated. Results: Performance on each task was analysed separately using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Results revealed directional benefits for sentence recognition and listening effort, but microphone setting did not affect localisation. Performance was equivalent with symmetric and asymmetric directional configurations. Conclusions: Bilateral and asymmetric directional microphone configurations equally improved sentence recognition and listening effort; neither affected localisation or recall.     

Noise reduction results of an adaptive filtering technique for dual-microphone behind-the-ear hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: The performance of an adaptive beam-former in a 2-microphone, behind-the-ear hearing aid for speech understanding in noisy environments was evaluated. Physical and perceptual evaluations were carried out. This was the first large-scale test of a wearable real-time implementation of this algorithm. The main perceptual research questions of this study were related to the influence on the noise reduction performance of (1) the spectro-temporal character of the jammer sound, (2) the jammer sound scene, (3) hearing impairment, and (4) the basic microphone configuration in the hearing aid. Four different speech materials were used for the perceptual evaluations. All tests were carried out in an acoustical environment comparable to living room reverberation. DESIGN: The adaptive beamformer was implemented in Audallion, a small, body-worn processor, linked to a Danasound 2-microphone behind-the-ear aid. The strategy was evaluated physically in different acoustical environments. Using speech reception threshold (SRT) measurements, the processing was evaluated perceptually and the different research questions addressed with three groups of subjects. Groups I, II, and III consisted of 10 normal-hearing, 5 hearing-impaired, and 7 normal-hearing persons, respectively. The tests were carried out in three spectro-temporally different jammer sounds (unmodulated and modulated speech weighted noise, multitalker babble) and in three different noise scenarios (single noise source at 90 degrees, noise sources at 90 degrees and 270 degrees relative to speaker position, diffuse noise scene). Two microphone configurations were compared: a device equipped with two omnidirectional microphones and a device equipped with one hardware directional and one omnidirectional microphone. In each of these conditions, the adaptive beamformer and the directional and omnidirectional microphone configurations were tested. RESULTS: The improvement in signal-to-noise ratio from the use of the adaptive beamformer did not depend on the spectro-temporal character of the jammer sounds and the speech materials used, although the absolute levels of the SRTs varied appreciably for different speech-noise combinations. The performance of the adaptive noise reduction depended on the jammer sound scene. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in signal-to-noise ratio improvement was observed between hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners, although individual SRT levels may differ. On average, an SRT improvement of 7.7 and 3.9 dB for a single noise source at 90 degrees and 5.9 and 3.4 dB for two noise sources at 90 degrees and 270 degrees was obtained for both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, using the adaptive beamformer and the directional microphone, respectively, relative to the omnidirectional microphone signal. In diffuse noise, only small improvements were obtained.