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.     

Making sense of directional microphone hearing aids

We have witnessed a large increase in the availability of directional microphone hearing aids over the past few years. Directional microphone technology is now available in analog, digitally controlled analog, and digital hearing aids, and has been implemented into both behind-the-ear and in-the-ear styles. This Short Course reviews basic design differences across directional microphone hearing aids. A number of different laboratory and clinical evaluation methods used for assessment of both electroacoustic and behavioral directivity are then reviewed. In addition, the potential impact of test conditions such as room reverberation and type and position of competing noise(s), on listener performance when fit with directional hearing aids are considered. Recommendations and suggestions relating to the clinical and laboratory assessment of directional hearing aids are provided.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids

This study compared the speech recognition performance of 12 hearing-impaired listeners fit with three commercially available behind-the-ear hearing aids in both directional and omnidirectional modes. One digitally programmable analog and two "true digital" hearing aids were selected as test instruments. Testing was completed in both "living room" and anechoic room environments. Speech recognition was examined using modified forms of the Hearing in Noise Test and the Nonsense Syllable Test. The single competing stimuli of these tests were replaced with five uncorrelated competing sources. Results revealed a significant speech recognition in noise advantage for all directional hearing aids in comparison to their omnidirectional counterparts. Maximum performance of the directional hearing aids did not significantly vary across circuit type, suggesting that processing differences did not affect maximum directional hearing aid performance. In addition, the results suggest that performance in one reverberant environment cannot be used to accurately predict performance in an environment with differing reverberation.     

Effect of signal-to-noise ratio on directional microphone benefit and preference

This study examined speech intelligibility and preferences for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aid processing across a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A primary motivation for the study was to determine whether SNR might be used to represent distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms based on scene analysis. Participants were current hearing aid users who either had experience with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids only or with manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Using IEEE/Harvard sentences from a front loudspeaker and speech-shaped noise from three loudspeakers located behind and to the sides of the listener, the directional advantage (DA) was obtained at 11 SNRs ranging from -15 dB to +15 dB in 3 dB steps. Preferences for the two microphone modes at each of the 11 SNRs were also obtained using concatenated IEEE sentences presented in the speech-shaped noise. Results revealed that a DA was observed across a broad range of SNRs, although directional processing provided the greatest benefit within a narrower range of SNRs. Mean data suggested that microphone preferences were determined largely by the DA, such that the greater the benefit to speech intelligibility provided by the directional microphones, the more likely the listeners were to prefer that processing mode. However, inspection of the individual data revealed that highly predictive relationships did not exist for most individual participants. Few preferences for omnidirectional processing were observed. Overall, the results did not support the use of SNR to estimate the effects of distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms.     

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.     

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Differences in performance between unaided and aided performance (omnidirectional and directional) were measured using an open-fit behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Twenty-six subjects without prior experience with amplification were fitted bilaterally using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the fitting parameters were fine-tuned, based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between unaided and aided (omnidirectional and directional) were assessed by measuring reception thresholds for sentences (RTS in dB), using HINT sentences presented at 0 degrees with R-Space restaurant noise held constant at 65dBA and presented via eight loudspeakers set 45 degrees apart. In addition, the APHAB was administered to assess subjective impressions of the experimental aid. Results revealed that significant differences in RTS (in dB) were present between directional and omnidirectional performance, as well as directional and unaided performance. Aided omnidirectional performance, however, was not significantly different from unaided performance. These findings suggest for the hearing aids and experimental condition used in this study, a patient would require directional microphones in order to perform significantly better than unaided or aided with omnidirectional microphones, and that performance with an omnidirectional microphone would not be significantly better than unaided. Finally, the APHAB-aided scores were significantly better than unaided scores for the EC, BN, RV, and AV subscales indicating the subjects, on average, perceived the experimental aid to provide significantly better performance than unaided, and that aided performance was more aversive than unaided.     

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Differences in performance between unaided and aided performance (omnidirectional and directional) were measured using an open-fit behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Twenty-six subjects without prior experience with amplification were fitted bilaterally using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the fitting parameters were fine-tuned, based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between unaided and aided (omnidirectional and directional) were assessed by measuring reception thresholds for sentences (RTS in dB), using HINT sentences presented at 0° with R-Space^TM restaurant noise held constant at 65dBA and presented via eight loudspeakers set 45° apart. In addition, the APHAB was administered to assess subjective impressions of the experimental aid.

Results revealed that significant differences in RTS (in dB) were present between directional and omnidirectional performance, as well as directional and unaided performance. Aided omnidirectional performance, however, was not significantly different from unaided performance. These findings suggest for the hearing aids and experimental condition used in this study, a patient would require directional microphones in order to perform significantly better than unaided or aided with omnidirectional microphones, and that performance with an omnidirectional microphone would not be significantly better than unaided. Finally, the APHAB-aided scores were significantly better than unaided scores for the EC, BN, RV, and AV subscales indicating the subjects, on average, perceived the experimental aid to provide significantly better performance than unaided, and that aided performance was more aversive than unaided.     

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.     

Impact of noise source configuration on directional hearing aid benefit and performance

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the position of noise source(s) and reverberation on the directional benefit and performance of three commercially available directional hearing aids. DESIGN: Directional benefit and performance were measured for four different configurations of competing noise source(s) in two different reverberant rooms. Three pairs of hearing aids representing three commercial models were selected based on electroacoustic evaluation of directivity. Directional benefit and performance of 25 subjects with symmetrical, sloping, sensorineural hearing loss were measured in all test environments using a modified version of the Hearing in Noise Test. RESULTS: Both reverberation and configuration of the competing noise source(s) significantly affected directional benefit and performance. There was no significant correlation between directional benefit and directional performance. The order of benefit and performance across hearing aid brands (from best to worst) varied depending on the noise source configuration. CONCLUSIONS: Data revealed increasing reverberation significantly decreased directional benefit and performance. The absolute and relative (rank ordering) directional benefit and performance varied across hearing aid brand, with noise source configuration. These results suggest that data collected in traditional test environments (e.g., a single competing noise placed at 180 degrees azimuth) cannot be used to accurately predict directional benefit or performance in the majority of other test and real-world environments. The impact of reverberation and noise source configuration on directional benefit/performance can be explained fairly well by the interaction between the spatial properties of the noise source(s) and the polar directivity patterns of the hearing aids.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.