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

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

A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids

Eight subjects with bilateral sensorineural hearing losses took part in a trial comparing listening unaided with listening binaurally through two types of hearing aid, aid A and aid B. Both aids incorporated slow-acting automatic gain control (AGC) operating on the whole speech signal. However, aid A also incorporated two-channel syllabic compression. The two aids were chosen to be as similar as possible in other respects, and both were worn behind the ear. Subjects were tested in a counter-balanced order, and had at least 2 weeks of everyday experience with each aid before testing took place. Performance was evaluated in three ways: by measuring speech intelligibility in quiet for sentences at three peak sound levels, 55, 70 and 85 dB SPL; by measuring the level of speech required for 50% intelligibility (called the SRT) of sentences in two levels of speech-shaped noise, 60 and 75 dB SPL; and by administering questionnaires about experience with the aids in everyday life. Both aid A and aid B improved the intelligibility of speech in quiet relative to unaided listening, particularly at the lowest sound level. However, aid A gave lower (i.e., superior) SRTs in speech-shaped noise than aid B or unaided listening. The questionnaires also indicated that aid A gave better performance in noisy situations. The results strongly suggest that two-channel syllabic compression, combined with slow-acting AGC operating on the whole speech signal, can give superior results to slow-acting AGC alone, particularly in noisy situations.     

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.     

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.     

The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing

A method has been established to measure the maximum acceptable background noise level (BNL) for a listener, while listening to speech at the most comfortable listening level (MCL). The acceptable noise level (ANL) is the difference between BNL and MCL. In the present study, the ANL procedure was used to measure acceptance of noise, first, in the presence of speech at MCL and, then, for speech presented at much lower and higher levels in listeners with normal hearing. This study used the term ANL to describe the results obtained at MCL and also at other speech presentation levels. The mean ANL at MCL was 15.5 dB, which is comparable to results obtained by previous investigators. ANL increases systematically with speech presentation level. Mean ANLs ranged from 10.6 dB when speech was presented at 20 dB HL to 24.6 dB when speech was presented at 76 dB HL. The results indicated that the acceptance of noise depends significantly on speech presentation level.     

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

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

Acceptable noise level as a 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

可接受噪声级测试在单、双耳佩戴助听器效果评估中的应用

目的 通过比较双侧中重度听力损失患者在单、双耳助听下的可接受噪声级(acceptable noise level,ANL),探讨ANL对助听器验配及预测助听效果的作用.方法 选取15例双侧中重度听力损失患者,分别测得双耳未助听、左耳助听、右耳助听和双耳助听状态下的最舒适响度级(most comfortable levels,MCL)、最大背景噪声级(background noise level,BNL),并计算得到ANL值(ANL=MCL-BNL),对结果进行统计学分析.结果 15例受试者双耳未助听、左耳助听、右耳助听及双耳助听四种状态下测得的ANL值分别为18.87±5.26、12.60±2.47、12.00±2.90、5.13±1.25 dB S/N;MCL值分别为80.40±9.28、63.73±5.15、62.27±5.36、61.80±6.05 dB HL;BNL值分别为61.67±6.14、51.13±3.94、50.27±4.50、56.67±5.16 dB HL;左耳助听与右耳助听下的ANL值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);单、双耳助听下与未助听的ANL值差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);双耳助听状态下ANL值显著低于单耳助听(P<0.05).结论 ANL值较低耳更利于助听器验配,佩戴助听器能有效提高听障患者对噪声的接受能力,并且双耳佩戴助听器的效果明显优于单耳.     

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.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise,with and without hearing aids

Speech recognition and cognitive functions important for speech understanding were evaluated by objective measures and by scores of perceived effort, with and without hearing aids. The tests were performed in silence, and with background conditions of speech spectrum random noise and ordinary speech. One young and one elderly group of twelve hearing-impaired subjects each participated. Hearing aid use improved speech recognition in silence (7 dB) and in the condition with speech as background (2.5 dB S/N), but did not change the perceived effort scores. In the cognitive tests no hearing aid benefit was seen in objective measures, while there was an effect of hearing aid use in scores of perceived effort, subjects reported less effort. There were no age effects on hearing aid benefit. In conclusion, hearing aid use may result in reduced effort in listening tasks that is not associated with improvement in objective scores.     

Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids

Speech recognition and cognitive functions important for speech understanding were evaluated by objective measures and by scores of perceived effort, with and without hearing aids. The tests were performed in silence, and with background conditions of speech spectrum random noise and ordinary speech. One young and one elderly group of twelve hearing-impaired subjects each participated. Hearing aid use improved speech recognition in silence (7 dB) and in the condition with speech as background (2.5 dB S/N), but did not change the perceived effort scores. In the cognitive tests no hearing aid benefit was seen in objective measures, while there was an effect of hearing aid use in scores of perceived effort, subjects reported less effort. There were no age effects on hearing aid benefit. In conclusion, hearing aid use may result in reduced effort in listening tasks that is not associated with improvement in objective scores.     

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.     

Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids

Speech recognition performance and self-reported benefit from linear analogue and advanced (digital) hearing aids were compared in 100 first-time hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid in a single-blind randomized crossover trial. Subjects used each aid for 5 weeks in turn, with aid order balanced across subjects. Three alternative models of digital hearing aid were assigned to subjects according to a balanced design. Aid type was disguised to keep subjects blind within practical limitations. Aided speech recognition performance in noise was measured at speech levels of 65 and 75dB at a speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +2dB for closed sets of single words. Self-rated benefit was measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). Quality of life, hearing aid use and user preferences were also assessed. Speech recognition scores with the digital aids were significantly better at 75dB than with the analogue aids Self-reported benefit (APHAB, GHABP) and improvement in quality of life were generally not significantly different between analogue and digital aids, although aversiveness measured with the APHAB was significantly lower with digital aids, and satisfaction measured with the GHABP was greater. The digital aids were preferred significantly more often than the analogue aids, with 61 subjects choosing their digital aid, 26 choosing the analogue aid, and nine being equivocal. Overall, this study shows advantages for advanced digital over simple linear analogue aids in terms of both objective and subjective outcomes, although average differences are not large.     

Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between hearing loss and speech reception threshold (SRT) in a fixed noise condition using the German Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA). Design: After training with two easily-audible lists of the OLSA, SRTs were determined monaurally with headphones at a fixed noise level of 65 dB SPL using a standard adaptive procedure, converging to 50% speech intelligibility. Study sample: Data was obtained from 315 ears of 177 subjects with hearing losses ranging from ? 5 to 90 dB HL pure-tone average (PTA, 0.5, 1, 2, 3 kHz). Results: Two domains were identified with a linear dependence of SRT on PTA. The SRT increased with a slope of 0.094 ± 0.006 dB SNR/dB HL (standard deviation (SD) of residuals = 1.17 dB) for PTAs < 47 dB HL and with a slope of 0.811 ± 0.049 dB SNR/dB HL (SD of residuals = 5.54 dB) for higher PTAs. Conclusion: The OLSA can be applied to subjects with a wide range of hearing losses. With 65 dB SPL fixed noise presentation level the SRT is determined by listening in noise for PTAs < ～47 dB HL, and above it is determined by listening in quiet.     

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.