Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users

Abstract

Objective: The acceptable noise level (ANL) test is used for quantification of the amount of background noise subjects accept when listening to speech. This study investigates Danish hearing-aid users’ ANL performance using Danish and non-semantic speech signals, the repeatability of ANL, and the association between ANL and outcome of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). Design: ANL was measured in three conditions in both ears at two test sessions. Subjects completed the IOI-HA and the ANL questionnaire. Study sample: Sixty-three Danish hearing-aid users; fifty-seven subjects were full time users and 6 were part time/non users of hearing aids according to the ANL questionnaire. Results: ANLs were similar to results with American English speech material. The coefficient of repeatability (CR) was 6.5–8.8 dB. IOI-HA scores were not associated to ANL. Conclusions: Danish and non-semantic ANL versions yield results similar to the American English version. The magnitude of the CR indicates that ANL with Danish and non-semantic speech materials is not suitable for prediction of individual patterns of future hearing-aid use or evaluation of individual benefit from hearing-aid features. The ANL with Danish and non-semantic speech materials is not related to IOI-HA outcome.     

Acceptable noise level: Repeatability with Danish and non-semantic speech materials for adults with normal hearing

Objective: The acceptable noise level (ANL) is used to quantify the amount of background noise that subjects can accept while listening to speech, and is suggested for prediction of individual hearing-aid use. The aim of this study was to assess the repeatability of the ANL measured in normal-hearing subjects using running Danish and non-semantic speech materials as stimuli and modulated speech-spectrum and multi-talker babble noises as competing stimuli. Design: ANL was measured in both ears at two test sessions separated by a period ranging from 12 to 77 days. At each session the measurements at the first and the second ear were separated in time by 15–30 minutes. Bland-Altman plots and calculation of the coefficient of repeatability (CR) were used to estimate the repeatability. Study sample: Thirty nine normal-hearing subjects. Results: The ANL CR was 6.0–8.9 dB for repeated tests separated by about 15–30 minutes and 7.2–10.2 dB for repeated tests separated by 12 days or more. Conclusions: The ANL test has poor repeatability when assessed with Danish and non-semantic speech materials on normal-hearing subjects. The same CR among hearing-impaired subjects would imply too poor repeatability to predict individual patterns of future hearing-aid use.     

Predicting three-month and 12-month post-fitting real-world hearing-aid outcome using pre-fitting acceptable noise level (ANL)

Objective: Determine the extent to which pre-fitting acceptable noise level (ANL), with or without other predictors such as hearing-aid experience, can predict real-world hearing-aid outcomes at three and 12 months post-fitting. Design: ANLs were measured before hearing-aid fitting. Post-fitting outcome was assessed using the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA) and a hearing-aid use questionnaire. Models that predicted outcomes (successful vs. unsuccessful) were built using logistic regression and several machine learning algorithms, and were evaluated using the cross-validation technique. Study sample: A total of 132 adults with hearing impairment. Results: The prediction accuracy of the models ranged from 61% to 68% (IOI-HA) and from 55% to 61% (hearing-aid use questionnaire). The models performed more poorly in predicting 12-month than three-month outcomes. The ANL cutoff between successful and unsuccessful users was higher for experienced (～18 dB) than first-time hearing-aid users (～10 dB), indicating that most experienced users will be predicted as successful users regardless of their ANLs. Conclusions: Pre-fitting ANL is more useful in predicting short-term (three months) hearing-aid outcomes for first-time users, as measured by the IOI-HA. The prediction accuracy was lower than the accuracy reported by some previous research that used a cross-sectional design.     

Acceptable noise level (ANL) and real-world hearing-aid success in Taiwanese listeners

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the relationship between acceptable noise level (ANL), which was measured using Taiwanese and the international speech test signal (ISTS), and real-world hearing-aid success for listeners who were representative of the population commonly seen in clinics. Design: Unaided ANLs were measured pre-hearing-aid fitting. Hearing-aid success was assessed three months post-fitting using the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA) and a hearing-aid use questionnaire. Study sample: Eighty adults with hearing impairment completed the study. Results: Both Taiwanese and ISTS ANLs were significantly associated with hearing-aid success, with higher ANLs suggesting poorer outcomes. However, the ANL's prediction accuracy for the probability of hearing-aid success was either much lower than that suggested by some literature, or was not much different from that of simply predicting all listeners as successful users. Conclusions: The current study suggested the possibility of using ANL to predict hearing-aid success. However, the usefulness of ANL as a clinical tool is unlikely to be as great as indicated by the literature.     

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.     

Identifying the needs of elderly, hearing-impaired persons: the importance and utility of hearing aid attributes

Older patients represent the majority of hearing-aid users. The needs of elderly, hearing-impaired subjects are not entirely identified. The present study aims to determine the importance of fundamental hearing-aid attributes and to elicit the utility of associated hypothetical hearing aids for older patients. This was achieved using a questionnaire-based conjoint analysis--a decompositional approach to preference measurement offering a realistic study design. A random sample of 200 experienced hearing-aid users participated in the study. Though three out of the six examined attributes revealed age-related dependencies, the only significant effect was found for the attribute "handling", which was considerably more important for older than younger hearing-aid users. A trend of decreasing importance of speech intelligibility in noise and increasing significance of speech in quiet was observed for subjects older than 70 years. In general, the utility of various hypothetical hearing aids was similar for older and younger subjects. Apart from the attribute "handling", older and younger subjects have comparable needs regarding hearing-aid features. On the basis of the examined attributes, there is no requirement for hearing aids designed specifically for elderly hearing-aid users, provided that ergonomic features are considered and the benefits of modern technology are made fully available for older patients.     

Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use

Acceptable noise level (ANL) measures a listener's reaction to background noise while listening to speech. Relations among hearing aid use and ANL, speech in noise (SPIN) scores, and listener characteristics (age, gender, pure-tone average) were investigated in 191 listeners with hearing impairment. Listeners were assigned to one of three groups based on patterns of hearing aid use: full-time use (whenever hearing aids are needed), part-time use (occasional use), or nonuse. Results showed that SPIN scores and listener characteristics were not related to ANL or hearing aid use. However, ANLs were related to hearing aid use. Specifically, full-time hearing aid users accepted more background noise than part-time users or nonusers, yet part-time users and nonusers could not be differentiated. Thus, a prediction of hearing aid use was examined by comparing part-time users and nonusers (unsuccessful hearing aid users) with full-time users (successful hearing aid users). Regression analysis determined that unaided ANLs could predict a listener's success of hearing aids with 85% accuracy.     

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.     

Acceptance of noise growth patterns in hearing aid users.

PURPOSE: To examine whether the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise could differentiate full-time, part-time, and nonusers of hearing aids and whether these effects could predict hearing aid use. METHOD: Participants were separated into 3 groups on the basis of hearing aid use: (a) full-time use, (b) part-time use, or (c) nonuse. Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were measured conventionally and at 8 fixed presentation levels. The effects of presentation level on ANL were determined by calculating global ANL (ANL averaged across presentation level) and ANL growth (slope of the ANL function). RESULTS: Global ANLs were smaller for full-time users than for part-time users and nonusers; however, global ANLs were not different for part-time users and nonusers. ANL growth differentiated full-time users from nonusers only. Conventional ANL predicted hearing aid use with 68% accuracy. Compared with conventional ANL, the accuracy of the prediction for global ANL and ANL growth decreased, and the accuracy of the prediction at presentation levels of 65 to 75 dB HL was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Global ANL differentiated the hearing aid groups in the same manner as conventional ANL. The effects of presentation level on acceptance of noise did not considerably increase the accuracy of the prediction compared with conventional ANL. Clinical applications are discussed.     

Subjective ratings of noise-reduction hearing aids

The effectiveness of seven commercially available noise-reduction hearing aids was evaluated using subjective ratings of continuous discourse. Subjective scales of listening comfort, speech quality, speech understanding, noise interference, and overall liking were used. Fifteen experienced hearing-aid users participated. Two hearing aids that used amplitude compression (Audiotone A-54 and Telex 363C), two hearing aids that used the Zeta Noise Blocker (two versions of a Maico SP147), and three hearing aids that proportionally attenuated the low-frequencies (Rion HB-69AS, Richards ASE-B, and Siemens 283 ASP) were evaluated. None of the noise-reduction hearing aids significantly altered group performance on any subjective scale. Individually, however, subjects responded differently to different noise-reduction hearing aids, indicating that some noise-reduction hearing aids may help some hearing-impaired individuals.     

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.     

Semantic context improves speech intelligibility and reduces listening effort for listeners with hearing impairment

Objective: We investigated whether speech intelligibility and listening effort for hearing-aid users is affected by semantic context and hearing-aid setting. Design: Participants heard target sentences spoken in a reverberant background of cafeteria noise and competing speech. Participants reported each sentence verbally. Eight participants also rated listening effort after each sentence. Sentence topic was either the same as, or different from, the previous target sentence. Study sample: Twenty participants with sensorineural hearing loss were fit binaurally with Signia receiver-in-the-canal hearing aids. Participants performed the task twice: once using the hearing aid’s omnidirectional setting and once using the “Reverberant Room” setting, designed to aid listening in reverberant environments. Results: Participants achieved better speech intelligibility for same-topic than different-topic sentences, and when they used the “Reverberant Room” than the omnidirectional hearing-aid setting. Participants who rated effort showed a reliable reduction in listening effort for same-topic sentences and for the “Reverberant Room” hearing-aid setting. The improvement in speech intelligibility from semantic context (i.e. same-topic compared to different-topic sentences) was greater than the improvement gained from changing hearing-aid setting. Conclusions: These findings highlight the enormous potential of cognitive (specifically, semantic) factors for improving speech intelligibility and reducing perceived listening effort in noise for hearing-aid users.     

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.     

The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise

Modern hearing aids commonly employ digital noise reduction (DNR) algorithms. The potential benefit of these algorithms is to provide improved speech understanding in noise or, at the least, to provide relaxed listening or increased ease of listening. In this study, 22 adults were fitted with 16-channel wide-dynamic-range compression hearing aids containing DNR processing. The DNR includes both modulation-based and Wiener-filter-type algorithms working simultaneously. Both speech intelligibility and acceptable noise level (ANL) were assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) with DNR on and DNR off. The ANL was also assessed without hearing aids. The results showed a significant mean improvement for the ANL (4.2 dB) for the DNR-on condition when compared to DNR-off condition. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between the magnitude of ANL improvement (relative to DNR on) and the DNR-off ANL. There was no significant mean improvement for the HINT for the DNR on condition, and on an individual basis, the HINT score did not significantly correlate with either aided ANL (DNR on or DNR off). These findings suggest that at least within the constraints of the DNR algorithms and test conditions employed in this study, DNR can significantly improve the clinically measured ANL, which may result in improved ease of listening for speech-in-noise situations.     

Advantages of Binaural Amplification to Acceptable Noise Level of Directional Hearing Aid Users

Objectives

The goal of the present study was to examine whether Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) would be lower (greater acceptance of noise) in binaural listening than in monaural listening condition and also whether meaningfulness of background speech noise would affect ANLs for directional microphone hearing aid users. In addition, any relationships between the individual binaural benefits on ANLs and the individuals'' demographic information were investigated.

Methods

Fourteen hearing aid users (mean age, 64 years) participated for experimental testing. For the ANL calculation, listeners'' most comfortable listening levels and background noise level were measured. Using Korean ANL material, ANLs of all participants were evaluated under monaural and binaural amplification with a counterbalanced order. The ANLs were also compared across five types of competing speech noises, consisting of 1- through 8-talker background speech maskers. Seven young normal-hearing listeners (mean age, 27 years) participated for the same measurements as a pilot testing.

Results

The results demonstrated that directional hearing aid users accepted more noise (lower ANLs) with binaural amplification than with monaural amplification, regardless of the type of competing speech. When the background speech noise became more meaningful, hearing-impaired listeners accepted less amount of noise (higher ANLs), revealing that ANL is dependent on the intelligibility of the competing speech. The individuals'' binaural advantages in ANLs were significantly greater for the listeners with longer experience of hearing aids, yet not related to their age or hearing thresholds.

Conclusion

Binaural directional microphone processing allowed hearing aid users to accept a greater amount of background noise, which may in turn improve listeners'' hearing aid success. Informational masking substantially influenced background noise acceptance. Given a significant association between ANLs and duration of hearing aid usage, ANL measurement can be useful for clinical counseling of binaural hearing aid candidates or unsuccessful users.     

Difficulties experienced by hearing-aid candidates and hearing-aid users

Responses to an open-ended questionnaire were obtained from 250 hearing-aid candidates who had never worn a hearing aid and from 250 experienced hearing-aid users. The questionnaire stated 'Please make a list of the difficulties which you have as a result of your hearing loss.' The responses were divided into six major categories. The hearing-aid candidates reported more problems than the experienced users in the categories of (a) understanding speech where speechreading would normally be used (92% versus 81%), and (b) understanding speech where speechreading would normally not be used (51% versus 43%). A similar number of respondents in both groups reported problems in the categories of (c) personal difficulties (11%), (d) audiological or medical difficulties (18%), and (e) difficulties associated with environmental sounds (34%). Thirty-five per cent of the hearing-aid users reported (f) difficulties associated with their hearing aids. The most frequently reported specific difficulty in both groups was watching television (47% of the candidates and 37% of the users). Twenty-one per cent in each group reported difficulty conversing on the telephone.     

The acceptance of background noise in adult cochlear implant users.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if acceptable noise levels (ANLs) are different in cochlear implant (CI) users than in listeners with normal hearing, (b) if ANLs are related to sentence reception thresholds in noise in CI users, and (c) if ANLs and subjective outcome measures are related in CI users. METHOD: ANLs and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994) were examined in 9 adult CI users and 15 adult listeners with normal hearing. In addition, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; R. M. Cox & G. C. Alexander, 1995) and a satisfaction questionnaire were administered to CI users only. RESULTS: Results indicated that (a) ANLs were not significantly different for CI users and listeners with normal hearing, (b) ANLs were not correlated with HINT values for either group, (c) ANL was not significantly correlated with APHAB scores, and (d) ANL was significantly correlated with overall CI benefit on the satisfaction questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: CI users with large ANLs reported more benefit from implants than those with small ANLs. The results of this preliminary study of ANL in CI users suggest that ANL can be used as a tool for evaluating processing in noise in individual CI users.     

不同年龄段助听器佩戴效果及满意度的评估

目的:比较分析不同年龄段听力障碍患者助听器佩戴效果及满意度。方法:按年龄将90例听力障碍患者分为3组,19～40岁为A组,41～60岁为B组,61～80岁为C组;分别于助听器佩戴后6周、6个月、12个月评估其助听效果及满意度。结果:助听器每日生活使用满意度调查问卷评分,积极作用、服务与花费以及个人形象A组得分均高于B组和C组,B组得分均高于C组(P<0.01);负面作用A组得分均低于B组和C组,B组得分均低于C组(P<0.01)。助听器效果国际性调查问卷评分,A组得分均高于B组和C组,B组得分均高于C组(P<0.01)。结论:随佩戴时间的延长各年龄段人群助听器佩戴效果及满意度都是逐渐增加的,但随年龄的增长佩戴效果及满意度是逐渐降低的。     

助听器效果评估调查问卷的初步应用

目的通过对两种助听效果评估调查问卷(COSI和IOI-HA)的临床应用和相互比较,建立更有针对性地反映中国听力障碍人群助听效果评估的问卷。方法通过电话随访和面对面问答的方式对助听器验配患者进行调查、分析。共30例患者接受调查。应用SPSS统计学软件分析,初步验证了两类调查问卷比较适合于我国听力障碍患者的康复和助听效果评估。结果对COSI问卷进行统计分析得出助听器使用者集中关心的5种问题,且两种"助听器效果评估调查问卷"调查结果的总体满意度为比较满意。结论效果评估问卷可以集中反映听力障碍患者最为关心的助听器问题和了解患者的助听器使用满意度,可初步作为康复效果评估的一个可靠主观效果评估指标。     

Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons

One of the frequently quoted reasons for the rejection of hearing aids is amplification of background noise. The relationship between hearing aid use and toleration of background noise was assessed. Four groups of elderly subjects (at least 65 years old) and one group of young subjects with normal hearing participated in the study. Each group consisted of 15 subjects. The young subjects and elderly subjects in one group with relatively good hearing were tested for comparison with the hearing-impaired subjects. Elderly subjects in the three remaining groups had acquired hearing losses and had been fitted with hearing aids. The subjects were assigned to three groups on the basis of hearing aid use: full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers. The amount of background noise tolerated when listening to speech was tested. The speech stimulus was a story read by a woman and set at an individually chosen most comfortable level. The maskers were a babble of voices, speech-spectrum noise, traffic noise, music, and the noise of a pneumatic drill. There was a significant interaction between groups and noises. The full-time users tolerated significantly higher levels of music and speech-spectrum noise than part-time users and nonusers. In addition, the full-time users, but not the part-time users, assessed themselves as less handicapped in everyday functions when they wore hearing aids than when they did not wear their hearing aids.