Comparison of Speech Recognition With Adaptive Digital and FM Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technology by Listeners Who Use Hearing Aids

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Thibodeau
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Wireless Technology ◽  
Noisy Environment ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Wireless Signal ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits of 3 types of remote microphone hearing assistance technology (HAT), adaptive digital broadband, adaptive frequency modulation (FM), and fixed FM, through objective and subjective measures of speech recognition in clinical and real-world settings. Method Participants included 11 adults, ages 16 to 78 years, with primarily moderate-to-severe bilateral hearing impairment (HI), who wore binaural behind-the-ear hearing aids; and 15 adults, ages 18 to 30 years, with normal hearing. Sentence recognition in quiet and in noise and subjective ratings were obtained in 3 conditions of wireless signal processing. Results Performance by the listeners with HI when using the adaptive digital technology was significantly better than that obtained with the FM technology, with the greatest benefits at the highest noise levels. The majority of listeners also preferred the digital technology when listening in a real-world noisy environment. The wireless technology allowed persons with HI to surpass persons with normal hearing in speech recognition in noise, with the greatest benefit occurring with adaptive digital technology. Conclusion The use of adaptive digital technology combined with speechreading cues would allow persons with HI to engage in communication in environments that would have otherwise not been possible with traditional wireless technology.

scholarly journals İşitme cihazı kullanan çocuklarda gürültüde konuşmayı anlama becerisinin değerlendirilmesi: Preliminer sonuçlar

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Ecem KARTAL ÖZCAN ◽  
Merve ÖZBAL BATUK ◽  
Şule KAYA ◽  
Gonca SENNAROĞLU
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Classroom Environment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Assessment of speech perception in noise in children with hearing aids: Preliminary results* Objective: Noisy environments are a part of the daily life of children, just like adults. Children with hearing loss who wear hearing aids are more susceptible to the negative effects of noise than their normal-hearing peers. This study aims to evaluate the speech recognition in noise performance of hearing aid users and compare them with their normal-hearing peers. Material and Method: Five children aged 6-12 years with bilateral moderate to severe symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and using bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aids were included in the study. 4 different conditions of the Turkish HINT-C were applied, and a speech recognition threshold (SRT) is determined for each condition. Results: Regardless of their age, the SRT needed by children with hearing aids to achieve equal performance with their normal-hearing peers was found to be higher for all test conditions. As seen in children with normal hearing in general, the mean noise front score of the children with hearing loss was higher than the mean noise right and noise left scores. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that children with bilaterally symmetrical moderate to severe hearing loss achieved poor speech recognition scores in environments similar to the classroom environment, compared to their normal-hearing peers. Our results guided appropriate rehabilitation and follow-up. Keywords: noise, speech recognition in noise, hearing loss, hearing aid, pediatric audiology, HINT, HINT-C

scholarly journals Multitasking with typical use of hearing aid noise reduction in older listeners

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Schoof ◽  
Pamela Souza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Dual Task Paradigm

Objective: Older hearing-impaired adults typically experience difficulties understanding speech in noise. Most hearing aids address this issue using digital noise reduction. While noise reduction does not necessarily improve speech recognition, it may reduce the resources required to process the speech signal. Those available resources may, in turn, aid the ability to perform another task while listening to speech (i.e., multitasking). This study examined to what extent changing the strength of digital noise reduction in hearing aids affects the ability to multitask. Design: Multitasking was measured using a dual-task paradigm, combining a speech recognition task and a visual monitoring task. The speech recognition task involved sentence recognition in the presence of six-talker babble at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 2 and 7 dB. Participants were fit with commercially-available hearing aids programmed under three noise reduction settings: off, mild, strong. Study sample: 18 hearing-impaired older adults. Results: There were no effects of noise reduction on the ability to multitask, or on the ability to recognize speech in noise. Conclusions: Adjustment of noise reduction settings in the clinic may not invariably improve performance for some tasks.

scholarly journals Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (08) ◽  
pp. 706-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Valente ◽  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Alison Brockmeyer ◽  
Steven Smith ◽  
Dorina Kallogjeri
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Monosyllabic Word ◽  
Phoneme Recognition ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Subjective Outcomes ◽  
Fitting Hearing Aids

AbstractThe American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines for fitting hearing aids to adult patients. These guidelines recommend using real-ear measures (REM) to verify that measured output/gain of hearing aid(s) match a validated prescriptive target. Unfortunately, approximately 70–80% of audiologists do not routinely use REM when fitting hearing aids, instead relying on a manufacturer default “first-fit” setting. This is problematic because numerous studies report significant differences in REM between manufacturer first-fit and the same hearing aids using a REM or programmed-fit. These studies reported decreased prescribed gain/output in the higher frequencies for the first-fit compared with the programmed fit, which are important for recognizing speech. Currently, there is little research in peer-reviewed journals reporting if differences between hearing aids fitted using a manufacturer first-fit versus a programmed-fit result in significant differences in speech recognition in quiet, noise, and subjective outcomes.To examine if significant differences were present in monosyllabic word and phoneme recognition (consonant-nucleus-consonant; CNC) in quiet, sentence recognition in noise (Hearing in Noise Test; HINT), and subjective outcomes using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaires between hearing aids fit using one manufacturer’s first-fit and the same hearing aids with a programmed-fit using REM to National Acoustic Laboratories Nonlinear Version 2 (NAL-NL2) prescriptive target.A double-blind randomized crossover design was used. Throughout the study, one investigator performed all REM whereas a second investigator measured speech recognition in quiet, noise, and scored subjective outcome measures.Twenty-four adults with bilateral normal sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss with no prior experience with amplification.The hearing aids were fit using the proprietary manufacturer default first-fit and a programmed-fit to NAL-NL2 using real-ear insertion gain measures. The order of the two fittings was randomly assigned and counterbalanced. Participants acclimatized to each setting for four weeks and returned for assessment of performance via the revised CNC word lists, HINT, APHAB, and SSQ for the respective fitting.(1) A significant median advantage of 15% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 9.7–24.3%) for words and 7.7% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 5.9–10.9%) for phonemes for the programmed-fit compared with first-fit at 50 dB sound pressure level (SPL) and 4% (p < 0.01; 95% CI: 1.7–6.3%) for words at 65 dB SPL; (2) No significant differences for the HINT reception threshold for sentences (RTS); (3) A significant median advantage of 4.2% [p < 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.6–13.2%] for the programmed-fit compared with the first-fit for the background noise subscale problem score for the APHAB; (4) No significant differences on the SSQ.Improved word and phoneme recognition for soft and words for average speech in quiet were reported for the programmed-fit. Seventy-nine percent of the participants preferred the programmed-fitting versus first-fit. Hearing aids, therefore, should be verified and programmed using REM to a prescriptive target versus no verification using a first-fit.

scholarly journals Speech Recognition in Noise for Adults With Normal Hearing

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. e972-e978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jourdan T. Holder ◽  
Laura M. Levin ◽  
René H. Gifford
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Evaluation of Performance With an Adaptive Digital Remote Microphone System and a Digital Remote Microphone Audio-Streaming Accessory System

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Morais Duke ◽  
Erin Schafer ◽  
Christine Jones ◽  
Hans E. Mülder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Good Predictor ◽  
Adaptive System ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Evaluation Of Performance ◽  
High Level

Purpose One purpose of this study was to evaluate the improvement in speech recognition obtained with use of 2 different remote microphone technologies. Another purpose of this study was to determine whether a battery of audiometric measures could predict benefit from use of these technologies. Method Sentence recognition was evaluated while 17 adults used each of 2 different hearing aids. Performance was evaluated with and without 2 different remote microphone systems. A variety of audiologic measures were administered to determine whether prefitting assessment may predict benefit from remote microphone technology. Results Use of both remote microphone systems resulted in improvement in speech recognition in quiet and in noise. There were no differences in performance obtained with the 2 different remote microphone technologies in quiet and at low competing noise levels, but use of the digital adaptive remote microphone system provided better speech recognition in the presence of moderate- to high-level noise. The Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentence Test Prescribed Gain Amplifier (Cameron & Dillon, 2010) measure served as a good predictor of benefit from remote microphone technology. Conclusions Each remote microphone system improved sentence recognition in noise, but greater improvement was obtained with the digital adaptive system. The Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentence Test Prescribed Gain Amplifier may serve as a good indicator of benefit from remote microphone technology.

scholarly journals Does Sentence-Level Coarticulation Affect Speech Recognition in Noise or a Speech Masker?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Brandi Jett ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Virginia Best ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
Lauren Calandruccio
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Target Type ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Noise Masker ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Main Effects

Purpose Three experiments were conducted to better understand the role of between-word coarticulation in masked speech recognition. Specifically, we explored whether naturally coarticulated sentences supported better masked speech recognition as compared to sentences derived from individually spoken concatenated words. We hypothesized that sentence recognition thresholds (SRTs) would be similar for coarticulated and concatenated sentences in a noise masker but would be better for coarticulated sentences in a speech masker. Method Sixty young adults participated ( n = 20 per experiment). An adaptive tracking procedure was used to estimate SRTs in the presence of noise or two-talker speech maskers. Targets in Experiments 1 and 2 were matrix-style sentences, while targets in Experiment 3 were semantically meaningful sentences. All experiments included coarticulated and concatenated targets; Experiments 2 and 3 included a third target type, concatenated keyword-intensity–matched (KIM) sentences, in which the words were concatenated but individually scaled to replicate the intensity contours of the coarticulated sentences. Results Regression analyses evaluated the main effects of target type, masker type, and their interaction. Across all three experiments, effects of target type were small (< 2 dB). In Experiment 1, SRTs were slightly poorer for coarticulated than concatenated sentences. In Experiment 2, coarticulation facilitated speech recognition compared to the concatenated KIM condition. When listeners had access to semantic context (Experiment 3), a coarticulation benefit was observed in noise but not in the speech masker. Conclusions Overall, differences between SRTs for sentences with and without between-word coarticulation were small. Beneficial effects of coarticulation were only observed relative to the concatenated KIM targets; for unscaled concatenated targets, it appeared that consistent audibility across the sentence offsets any benefit of coarticulation. Contrary to our hypothesis, effects of coarticulation generally were not more pronounced in speech maskers than in noise maskers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document