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.     

Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments

PURPOSE: To examine speech recognition performance and subjective ratings for directional and omnidirectional microphone modes across a variety of simulated classroom environments. METHOD: Speech recognition was measured in a group of 26 children age 10-17 years in up to 8 listening environments. RESULTS: Significant directional benefit was found when the sound source(s) of interest was in front, and directional decrement was measured when the sound source of interest was behind the participants. Of considerable interest is that a directional decrement was observed in the absence of directional benefit when sources of interest were both in front of and behind the participants. In addition, limiting directional processing to the low frequencies eliminated both the directional deficit and the directional advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Although these data support the use of directional hearing aids in some noisy school environments, they also suggest that use of the directional mode should be limited to situations in which all talkers of interest are located in the front hemisphere. These results highlight the importance of appropriate switching between microphone modes in the school-age population.     

Quantification of directional benefit across different polar response patterns

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the directivity of a directional microphone hearing aid and listener performance. Hearing aids were fit bilaterally to 19 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss, and five microphone conditions were assessed: omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid, and "monofit," wherein the left hearing aid was set to omnidirectional and the right hearing aid to hypercardioid. Speech perception performance was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Connected Speech Test (CST). Subjects also assessed eight domains of sound quality for three stimuli (speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music). A diffuse soundfield system composed of eight loudspeakers forming the corners of a cube was used to output the background noise for the speech perception tasks and the three stimuli used for sound quality judgments. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the HINT or CST performance, or sound quality judgments, across the four directional microphone conditions when tested in a diffuse field. Of particular interest was the monofit condition: Performance on speech perception tests was the same whether one or two directional microphones were used.     

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.     

Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids

When the frequency range over which vent-transmitted sound dominates amplification increases, the potential benefit from directional microphones and noise reduction decreases. Fitted with clinically appropriate vent sizes, 23 aided listeners with varying low-frequency hearing thresholds evaluated six schemes comprising three levels of gain at 250 Hz (0, 6, and 12 dB) combined with two features (directional microphone and noise reduction) enabled or disabled in the field. The low-frequency gain was 0 dB for vent-dominated sound, while the higher gains were achieved by amplifier-dominated sounds. A majority of listeners preferred 0-dB gain at 250 Hz and the features enabled. While the amount of low-frequency gain had no significant effect on speech recognition in noise or horizontal localization, speech recognition and front/back discrimination were significantly improved when the features were enabled, even when vent-transmitted sound dominated the low frequencies. The clinical implication is that there is no need to increase low-frequency gain to compensate for vent effects to achieve benefit from directionality and noise reduction over a wider frequency range.     

Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids

When the frequency range over which vent-transmitted sound dominates amplification increases, the potential benefit from directional microphones and noise reduction decreases. Fitted with clinically appropriate vent sizes, 23 aided listeners with varying low-frequency hearing thresholds evaluated six schemes comprising three levels of gain at 250 Hz (0, 6, and 12 dB) combined with two features (directional microphone and noise reduction) enabled or disabled in the field. The low-frequency gain was 0 dB for vent-dominated sound, while the higher gains were achieved by amplifier-dominated sounds. A majority of listeners preferred 0-dB gain at 250 Hz and the features enabled. While the amount of low-frequency gain had no significant effect on speech recognition in noise or horizontal localization, speech recognition and front/back discrimination were significantly improved when the features were enabled, even when vent-transmitted sound dominated the low frequencies. The clinical implication is that there is no need to increase low-frequency gain to compensate for vent effects to achieve benefit from directionality and noise reduction over a wider frequency range.     

Directivity quantification in hearing aids: fitting and measurement effects

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of venting, microphone port orientation, and compression on the electroacoustically measured directivity of directional and omnidirectional behind-the-ear hearing aids. In addition, the average directivity provided across three brands of directional and omnidirectional behind-the-ear hearing aids was compared with that provided by the open ear. DESIGN: Three groups of hearing aids (four instruments in each group) representing three commercial models (a total of 12) were selected for electroacoustic evaluation of directivity. Polar directivity patterns were measured and directivity index was calculated across four different venting configurations, and for five different microphone port angles. All measurements were made for instruments in directional and omnidirectional modes. Single source traditional, and two-source modified front-to-back ratios were also measured with the hearing aids in linear and compression modes. RESULTS: The directivity provided by the open (Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research) ear was superior to that of the omnidirectional hearing aids in this study. Although the directivity measured for directional hearing aids was significantly better than that of omnidirectional models, significant variability was measured both within and across the tested models both on average and at specific test frequencies. Both venting and microphone port orientation affected the measured directivity. Although compression reduced the magnitude of traditionally measured front-to-back ratios, no difference from linear amplification was noted using a modified methodology. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in the measured directivity both within and across the directional microphone hearing aid brands suggests that manufacturer's specification of directivity may not provide an accurate index of the actual performance of all individual instruments. The significant impact of venting and microphone port orientation on directivity indicate that these variables must be addressed when fitting directional hearing aids on hearing-impaired listeners. Modified front-to-back ratio results suggest that compression does not affect the directivity of hearing aids, if it is assumed that the signal of interest from one azimuth, and the competing signal from a different azimuth, occur at the same time.     

Unilateral hearing loss: benefits and satisfaction from the use of hearing aids

Aunilateral hearing loss is characterized by reduced hearing in one ear. The problems caused by sensory deprivation can be minimized with the use of hearing aids (HA).AimTo analyze the correlation between the prescribed grain and the insertion gain difference and with the results obtained regarding the benefit and satisfaction with the use of hearing aids in unilateral hearing impaired patients.Materials and MethodsProspective study with 15 subjects, mean age of 41.6 years, of both genders, users of hearing aids effectively. We used the International Questionnaire Results for hearing aids (International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids - IOI-HA), measured with a probe microphone.ResultsThe mean values in the analyses of the IOI-HA per item were positive and higher than four points. In relation to the objective measures, the frequencies in which we obtained the gain values which were closer to the target were: 1K Hz, 2K Hz and 500 Hz, respectively.ConclusionThe satisfaction of individuals using hearing aid unilaterally is not completely correlated to the prescribed gain, because even if the target is not being reached in some frequencies, the individuals were pleased as to the use of their hearing aids.     

The effects of venting and low-frequency gain compensation on performance in noise with directional hearing instruments

The present study investigated the effects of gain compensation and venting on front-to-back ratios (FBRs), speech understanding in noise, and acceptance of noise in 19 listeners with hearing impairment utilizing directional hearing instruments. The participants were separated into two groups based on degree of low-frequency hearing sensitivity. Subjects were fitted binaurally with Starkey Axent II programmable behind-the-ear hearing aids and full-shell earmolds (select-a-vent). Results demonstrated that gain compensation and venting significantly affected FBRs for both groups; however, acceptance of noise was not significantly affected by gain compensation or venting for either group. Results further demonstrated that speech understanding in noise was unaffected by venting but may be improved with the use of gain compensation for some listeners. Clinical implications are discussed.     

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.     

Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids

The improvement in speech recognition in noise obtained with directional microphones compared to omnidirectional microphones is referred to as the directional advantage. Laboratory studies have revealed substantial differences in the magnitude of the directional advantage across hearing-impaired listeners. This investigation examined whether persons who were successful users of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday living tended to obtain a larger directional advantage in the test booth than persons who were unsuccessful users. Results revealed that the mean directional advantage did not differ significantly between patients who used the directional mode regularly and those who reported little or no benefit from directional microphones in daily living and, therefore, tended to leave their hearing aids set in the default omnidirectional mode. Success with directional microphone hearing aids in everyday living, therefore, cannot be reliably predicted by the magnitude of the directional advantage obtained in the clinic.     

Distance and reverberation effects on directional benefit

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the potential benefits and limitations of directional hearing aids across a wide range of listening environments is important when counseling persons with hearing loss regarding realistic expectations for these devices. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of speaker-to-listener distance on directional benefit in two reverberant environments, in which the dominate noise sources were placed close to the hearing aid wearer. In addition, speech transmission index (STI) measures made in the test environments were compared to measured sentence recognition to determine if performance was predictable across changes in distance, reverberation and microphone mode. DESIGN: The aided sentence recognition, in noise, for fourteen adult participants with symmetrical sensorineural hearing impairment was measured in six environmental conditions in both directional and omnidirectional modes. A single room, containing four uncorrelated noise sources served as the test environment. The room was modified to exhibit either low (RT60 = 0.3 sec) or moderate (RT60 = 0.9 sec) levels of reverberation. Sentence recognition was measured in both reverberant environments at three different speech loudspeaker-to-listener distances (1.2 m, 2.4 m, and 4.8 m). STI measures also were made in each of the 12 listening conditions (2 microphone modes x 3 distances x 2 reverberation environments). RESULTS: A decrease in directional benefit was measured with increasing distance in the moderate reverberation condition. Although reduced, directional benefit was still present in the moderately reverberant environment at the farthest speech speaker-to-listener distance tested in this experiment. A similar decrease with increasing speaker-to-listener distance was not measured in the low reverberation condition. The pattern of average sentence recognition results across varying distances and two different reverberation times agreed with the pattern of STI values measured under the same conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although these data support increased directional benefit in noise for reduced speaker-to-listener distance, some benefit was still obtained by listeners when listening beyond "effective" critical distance under conditions of low (300 msec) to moderate (900 msec) reverberation. It is assumed that the directional benefit was due to the reduction of the direct sound energy from the noise sources near the listener. The use of aided STI values for the prediction of average word recognition across listening conditions that differ in reverberation, microphone directivity, and speaker-to-listener distance also was supported.     

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.     

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.     

Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening

Seventeen hearing-impaired adults were fit with omnidirectional/directional hearing aids, which they wore during a four-week trial. For each listening situation encountered in daily living during a total of seven days, participants selected the preferred microphone mode and described the listening situation in terms of five environmental variables, using a paper and pencil form. Results indicated that hearing-impaired adults typically spend the majority of their active listening time in situations with background noise present and surrounding the listener, and the signal source located in front and relatively near. Microphone preferences were fairly evenly distributed across listening situations but differed depending on the characteristics of the listening environment. The omnidirectional mode tended to be preferred in relatively quiet listening situations or, in the presence of background noise, when the signal source was relatively far away. The directional mode tended to be preferred when background noise was present and the signal source was located in front of and relatively near the listener. Results suggest that knowing only signal location and distance and whether background noise is present or absent, omnidirectional/directional hearing aids can be set in the preferred mode in most everyday listening situations. These findings have relevance for counseling patients when to set manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids in each microphone mode, as well as for the development of automatic algorithms for selecting omnidirectional versus directional microphone processing.     

Predicting directional hearing aid benefit for individual listeners

The fitting of directional microphone hearing aids is becoming increasingly more routine, and this fitting option has proven to be a successful method to improve speech intelligibility in many noisy listening environments. Data suggest, however, that some hearing-impaired listeners receive significantly more directional benefit than others. It is of interest, therefore, to determine if directional benefit is predictable from identifiable audiologic factors. In this report, we examined whether the slope of audiometric configuration, amount of high-frequency hearing loss, and/or the aided omnidirectional performance for a speech-in-noise intelligibility task could be used to predict the magnitude of directional hearing aid benefit. Overall results obtained from three separate investigations revealed no significant correlation between the slope of audiometric configuration or amount of high-frequency hearing loss and the benefit obtained from directional microphone hearing instruments. Although there was a significant, negative relationship between aided omnidirectional performance and the directional benefit obtained in one study, there was considerable variability among individual participants, and nearly all of the listeners with the best omnidirectional hearing aid performance still received significant additional benefit from directional amplification. These results suggest that audiologists should consider the use of directional amplification for patients regardless of audiogram slope, high-frequency hearing loss, or omnidirectional speech intelligibility score.     

Preferred insertion gain of hearing aids in listening and reading-aloud situations

Nine hearing-impaired subjects with primarily high-frequency hearing loss (Group A) and 8 hearing-impaired subjects with hearing loss in both the high- and low-frequency regions (Group B) participated in the experiment. Subjects wore binaural programmable multimemory hearing aids and selected the preferred amount of insertion gain while they listened to discourse passages read by a male speaker (listen). Subjects also selected the preferred amount of gain while they listened to themselves as they were reading the same passages (read-aloud). Subjects' word-recognition performances and their subjective impressions of the hearing aids determined in listen and read-aloud conditions were examined on subsequent listening and reading tasks. Hearing-impaired subjects preferred more insertion gain in the listen condition than in the read-aloud condition. Different insertion gains led to different objective and subjective performances. Hearing-aid responses selected for a particular condition (listening vs. reading aloud) yielded the best performance in that condition. Assuming the primary purpose of a hearing aid is for amplifying the speech of others, these findings suggest that one should not adjust the gain of a hearing aid using one's own voice as the reference. In addition, one should be careful in soliciting subjective comments from hearing-impaired patients during hearing-aid fittings to avoid underamplifying those individuals in the low frequencies. Multimemory hearing aids may be necessary for some hearing-impaired patients to use their hearing aids satisfactorily in listening and speaking conditions.     

Use of a digital hearing aid with directional microphones in school-aged children

The efficacy of a digital hearing aid with a directional microphone was examined in a school-aged population. Twenty children (9 with a mild-to-moderately-severe hearing loss and 11 with a moderate-to-severe hearing loss) between 7 1/2 and 13 2/3 years of age wore the study hearing aids binaurally for 30 days prior to the evaluation. The testing protocol included speech recognition tests using the CID W-22 word lists presented at 72 dB SPL, 65 dB SPL, and 52 dB SPL (at 0 degrees azimuth) in the presence of a 65 dB SPL party noise (180 degrees azimuth). Subjective rating of hearing aid efficacy in the classroom was examined using the Listening Inventory For Education (LIFE) questionnaire. Parental impression on hearing aid efficacy was also collected at the end of the study. The results showed improved speech recognition in noise with the digital directional hearing aid at all presentation levels. Preference for the digital directional hearing aids over the subjects' own omnidirectional analog hearing aids was also seen on the LIFE questionnaire and parental impression. The degree of hearing loss did not seem to have affected the benefits offered by the digital directional hearing aids. These results were compared to results from other studies on the use of directional microphones in hearing aids.