Individual Differences Offer Insight Into Clinical Recommendations for Directional and Remote Microphone Technology Use in Children

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 635-650
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Gustafson ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
Erin M. Picou
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Secondary Task ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Primary Task ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Clinical Recommendations

Purpose This study sought to evaluate the effects of common hearing aid microphone technologies on speech recognition and listening effort, and to evaluate potential predictive factors related to microphone benefits for school-age children with hearing loss in a realistic listening situation. Method Children ( n = 17, ages 10–17 years) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with hearing aids set to include three programs: omnidirectional, adaptive directional, and omnidirectional + remote microphone. Children completed a dual-task paradigm in a moderately reverberant room. The primary task included monosyllabic word recognition, with target speech presented at 60 dB A from 0° (front) or 180° (back) azimuth. The secondary task was a “go/no-go,” visual shape-recognition task. Multitalker babble noise created a +5 dB SNR. Children were evaluated in two speaker conditions (front, back) using all three hearing aid programs. The remote microphone transmitter remained at the front speaker throughout testing. Speech recognition performance was calculated from the primary task while listening effort was measured as response time during the secondary task. Results Speech presented from the back significantly increased listening effort and caused a reduction in speech perception when directional and remote microphones were used. Considerable variability was found in pattern of benefit across microphones and source location. Clinical measures did not predict benefit patterns with directional or remote microphones; however, child age and performance with omnidirectional microphones did. Conclusions When compared to a traditional omnidirectional setting, the directional and remote microphone configurations evaluated in this study have the potential to provide benefit for some children and increase difficulty for others when used in dynamic environments. A child's performance with omnidirectional hearing aids could be used to better inform clinical recommendations for these technologies.

scholarly journals The Characteristics of Adults with Severe Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (08) ◽  
pp. 764-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Souza ◽  
Eric Hoover ◽  
Michael Blackburn ◽  
Frederick Gallun
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Assistive Technology ◽  
Spectral Resolution ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Severe Hearing Loss ◽  
Wide Range

AbstractSevere hearing loss impairs communication in a wide range of listening environments. However, we lack data as to the specific objective and subjective abilities of listeners with severe hearing loss. Insight into those abilities may inform treatment choices.The primary goal was to describe the audiometric profiles, spectral resolution ability, and objective and subjective speech perception of a sample of adult listeners with severe hearing loss, and to consider the relationships among those measures. We also considered the typical fitting received by individuals with severe loss, in terms of hearing aid style, electroacoustic characteristics, and features, as well as supplementary device use.A within-subjects design was used.Participants included 36 adults aged 54–93 yr with unilateral or bilateral severe hearing loss.Testing included a full hearing and hearing aid history; audiometric evaluation; loudness growth and dynamic range; spectral resolution; assessment of cochlear dead regions; objective and subjective assessment of speech recognition; and electroacoustic evaluation of current hearing aids. Regression models were used to analyze relationships between hearing loss, spectral resolution, and speech recognition.For speech in quiet, 60% of the variance was approximately equally accounted for by amount of hearing loss, spectral resolution, and number of dead regions. For speech in noise, only a modest proportion of performance variance was explained by amount of hearing loss. In general, participants were wearing amplification of appropriate style and technology for their hearing loss, but the extent of assistive technology use was low. Subjective communication ratings depended on the listening situation, but in general, were similar to previously published data for adults with mild-to-moderate loss who did not wear hearing aids.The present data suggest that the range of abilities of an individual can be more fully captured with comprehensive testing. Such testing also offers an opportunity for informed counseling regarding realistic expectations for hearing aid use and the availability of hearing assistive technology.

scholarly journals Degree of Hearing Loss Affects Bilateral Hearing Aid Benefits in Ecologically Relevant Laboratory Conditions

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 3834-3850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
James Shehorn ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Previous evidence supports benefits of bilateral hearing aids, relative to unilateral hearing aid use, in laboratory environments using audio-only (AO) stimuli and relatively simple tasks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate bilateral hearing aid benefits in ecologically relevant laboratory settings, with and without visual cues. In addition, we evaluated the relationship between bilateral benefit and clinically viable predictive variables. Method Participants included 32 adult listeners with hearing loss ranging from mild–moderate to severe–profound. Test conditions varied by hearing aid fitting type (unilateral, bilateral) and modality (AO, audiovisual). We tested participants in complex environments that evaluated the following domains: sentence recognition, word recognition, behavioral listening effort, gross localization, and subjective ratings of spatialization. Signal-to-noise ratio was adjusted to provide similar unilateral speech recognition performance in both modalities and across procedures. Results Significant and similar bilateral benefits were measured for both modalities on all tasks except listening effort, where bilateral benefits were not identified in either modality. Predictive variables were related to bilateral benefits in some conditions. With audiovisual stimuli, increasing hearing loss, unaided speech recognition in noise, and unaided subjective spatial ability were significantly correlated with increased benefits for many outcomes. With AO stimuli, these same predictive variables were not significantly correlated with outcomes. No predictive variables were correlated with bilateral benefits for sentence recognition in either modality. Conclusions Hearing aid users can expect significant bilateral hearing aid advantages for ecologically relevant, complex laboratory tests. Although future confirmatory work is necessary, these data indicate the presence of vision strengthens the relationship between bilateral benefits and degree of hearing loss.

scholarly journals Unilateral hearing loss and the use of hearing aid: speech recognition, benefit, self-perception of functional performance and satisfaction

Revista CEFAC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiéli Dalla Costa ◽  
Sinéia Neujahr dos Santos ◽  
Maristela Julio Costa
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Sound Amplification

ABSTRACT Purpose: to investigate speech recognition in silence and in noise in subjects with unilateral hearing loss with and without hearing aids, and to analyze the benefit, self-perception of functional performance, satisfaction and the use of hearing aids in these subjects. Methods: eleven adults with unilateral, mixed and sensorineural, mild to severe hearing loss participated in this study. Speech recognition was evaluated by the Brazilian Portuguese sentences lists test; functional performance of the hearing was assessed by using the Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire; satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire, both in Brazilian Portuguese; and to assess the use of hearing aids, the patient's report was analyzed. Results: the adaptation of hearing aids provided benefits in speech recognition in all positions evaluated, both in silence and in noise. The subjects did not report major limitations in communication activities with the use of hearing aids. They were satisfied with the use of sound amplification. Most of the subjects did not use hearing aids, effectively. The discontinuity of hearing aids use can be justified by the difficulty on perceiving participation’s restriction caused by hearing loss, as well as the benefit of the hearing aid, besides the concern with batteries’ costs and aesthetic aspects. Conclusion: although showing benefits in speech recognition, in silence and in noise, and satisfaction with sound amplification, most subjects with unilateral hearing loss do not effectively use hearing aids.

Low-level Speech Recognition of Children with Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Duke ◽  
Sharon Miller ◽  
Erin Schafer ◽  
Christine Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: For children with hearing loss, the primary goal of hearing aids is to provide improved access to the auditory environment within the limits of hearing aid technology and the child’s auditory abilities. However, there are limited data examining aided speech recognition at very low (40 dBA) and low (50 dBA) presentation levels. Purpose: Due to the paucity of studies exploring aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss, the present study aimed to 1) compare aided speech recognition at different presentation levels between groups of children with normal hearing and hearing loss, 2) explore the effects of aided pure tone average (PTA) and aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) on aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss ranging in degree from mild to severe, and 3) evaluate the effect of increasing low-level gain on aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Research Design: In phase 1 of this study, a two-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate differences in speech recognition. In phase 2 of this study, a single-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the potential benefit of additional low-level hearing aid gain for low-level aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Study Sample: The first phase of the study included 27 school-age children with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss and 12 school-age children with normal hearing. The second phase included eight children with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Intervention: Prior to the study, children with hearing loss were fitted binaurally with digital hearing aids. Children in the second phase were fitted binaurally with digital study hearing aids and completed a trial period with two different gain settings: 1) gain required to match hearing aid output to prescriptive targets (i.e., primary program), and 2) a 6-dB increase in overall gain for low-level inputs relative to the primary program. In both phases of this study, real-ear verification measures were completed to ensure the hearing aid output matched prescriptive targets. Data Collection and Analysis: Phase 1 included monosyllabic word recognition and syllable-final plural recognition at three presentation levels (40, 50, and 60 dBA). Phase 2 compared speech recognition performance for the same test measures and presentation levels with two differing gain prescriptions. Results and Conclusions: In phase 1 of the study, aided speech recognition was significantly poorer in children with hearing loss at all presentation levels. Higher aided SII in the better ear (55 dB SPL input) was associated with higher CNC word recognition at a 40 dBA presentation level. In phase 2, increasing the hearing aid gain for low-level inputs provided a significant improvement in syllable-final plural recognition at very low-level inputs and resulted in a non-significant trend toward better monosyllabic word recognition at very low presentation levels. Additional research is needed to document the speech recognition difficulties children with hearing aids may experience with low-level speech in the real world as well as the potential benefit or detriment of providing additional low-level hearing aid gain

scholarly journals Evidence of Acclimatization in Persons with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 084-099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis K. Kuk ◽  
Lisa Potts ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Lidia Lee ◽  
Jay Picirrillo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Secondary Purpose ◽  
Objective Performance ◽  
Recognition Testing ◽  
The One ◽  
Better Than

The present study examined the phenomenon of acclimatization in persons with a severe-to-profound hearing loss. A secondary purpose was to examine the efficacy of a digital nonlinear power hearing aid that has a low compression threshold with expansion for this population. Twenty experienced hearing aid users wore the study hearing aids for three months and their performance with the study hearing aids was evaluated at the initial fitting, one month, and three months after the initial fitting. Performance of their current hearing aids was also evaluated at the initial fitting. Speech recognition testing was conducted at input levels of 50 dB SPL and 65 dB SPL in quiet, and 75 dB SPL in noise at a +10 SNR. Questionnaires were used to measure subjective performance at each evaluation interval. The results showed improvement in speech recognition score at the one-month evaluation over the initial evaluation. No significant improvement was seen at the three-month evaluation from the one-month visit. In addition, subjective and objective performance of the study hearing aids was significantly better than the participants' own hearing aids at all evaluation intervals. These results provided evidence of acclimatization in persons with a severe-to-profound hearing loss and reinforced the precaution that any trial of amplification, especially from linear to nonlinear mode, should consider this phenomenon.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

scholarly journals Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (09) ◽  
pp. 810-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Kirby ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Clairissa M. Mollak ◽  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
At Home

AbstractSloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds.This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children.Participants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm.Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users.Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.Overall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.These results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Treatment for Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part II: Speech Recognition in Comparison to Direct Acoustic Cochlear Stimulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-142
Author(s):  
Nina Wardenga ◽  
Ad F.M. Snik ◽  
Eugen Kludt ◽  
Bernd Waldmann ◽  
Thomas Lenarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Middle Ear Surgery ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Technical Specifications

Background: The conventional therapy for severe mixed hearing loss is middle ear surgery combined with a power hearing aid. However, a substantial group of patients with severe mixed hearing loss cannot be treated adequately with today’s state-of-the-art (SOTA) power hearing aids, as predicted by the accompanying part I of this publication, where we compared the available maximum power output (MPO) and gain from technical specifications to requirements for optimum benefit using a common fitting rule. Here, we intended to validate the theoretical assumptions from part I experimentally in a mixed hearing loss cohort fitted with SOTA power hearing aids. Additionally, we compared the results with an implantable hearing device that circumvents the impaired middle ear, directly stimulating the cochlea, as this might be a better option. Objectives: Speech recognition outcomes obtained from patients with severe mixed hearing loss supplied acutely with a SOTA hearing aid were studied to validate the outcome predictions as described in part I. Further, the results obtained with hearing aids were compared to those in direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) users. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients (37 ears with mixed hearing loss) were provided and fitted with a SOTA power hearing aid. Before and after an acclimatization period of at least 4 weeks, word recognition scores (WRS) in quiet and in noise were studied, as well as the speech reception threshold in noise (SRT). The outcomes were compared retrospectively to a second group of 45 patients (47 ears) using the DACI device. Based on the severity of the mixed hearing loss and the available gain and MPO of the SOTA hearing aid, the hearing aid and DACI users were subdivided into groups with prediction of sufficient, partially insufficient, or very insufficient hearing aid performance. Results: The patients with predicted adequate SOTA hearing aid performance indeed showed the best WRS in quiet and in noise when compared to patients with predicted inferior outcomes. Insufficient hearing aid performance at one or more frequencies led to a gradual decrease in hearing aid benefit, validating the criteria used here and in the accompanying paper. All DACI patients showed outcomes at the same level as the adequate hearing aid performance group, being significantly better than those of the groups with inadequate hearing aid performance. Whereas WRS in quiet and noise were sensitive to insufficient gain or output, showing significant differences between the SOTA hearing aid and DACI groups, the SRT in noise was less sensitive. Conclusions: Limitations of outcomes in mixed hearing loss individuals due to insufficient hearing aid performance can be accurately predicted by applying a commonly used fitting rule and the 35-dB dynamic range rule on the hearing aid specifications. Evidently, when outcomes in patients with mixed hearing loss using the most powerful hearing aids are insufficient, bypassing the middle ear with a powerful active middle ear implant or direct acoustic implant can be a promising alternative treatment.

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.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of Hearing Aid Beamforming Microphone Arrays in a Noisy Laboratory Setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Microphone Arrays ◽  
Laboratory Setting ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Sentence Recognition

AbstractPeople with hearing loss experience difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. Beamforming microphone arrays in hearing aids can improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thus also speech recognition and subjective ratings. Unilateral beamformer arrays, also known as directional microphones, accomplish this improvement using two microphones in one hearing aid. Bilateral beamformer arrays, which combine information across four microphones in a bilateral fitting, further improve the SNR. Early bilateral beamformers were static with fixed attenuation patterns. Recently adaptive, bilateral beamformers have been introduced in commercial hearing aids.The purpose of this article was to evaluate the potential benefits of adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers for improving sentence recognition and subjective ratings in a laboratory setting. A secondary purpose was to identify potential participant factors that explain some of the variability in beamformer benefit.Participants were fitted with study hearing aids equipped with commercially available adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers. Participants completed sentence recognition testing in background noise using three hearing aid settings (omnidirectional, unilateral beamformer, bilateral beamformer) and two noise source configurations (surround, side). After each condition, participants made subjective ratings of their perceived work, desire to control the situation, willingness to give up, and tiredness.Eighteen adults (50–80 yr, M = 66.2, σ = 8.6) with symmetrical mild sloping to severe hearing loss participated.Sentence recognition scores and subjective ratings were analyzed separately using generalized linear models with two within-subject factors (hearing aid microphone and noise configuration). Two benefit scores were calculated: (1) unilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with omnidirectional) and (2) additional bilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with unilateral beamformer). Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to determine if beamformer benefit was associated with participant factors (age, degree of hearing loss, unaided speech in noise ability, spatial release from masking, and performance in omnidirectional).Sentence recognition and subjective ratings of work, control, and tiredness were better with both types of beamformers relative to the omnidirectional conditions. In addition, the bilateral beamformer offered small additional improvements relative to the unilateral beamformer in terms of sentence recognition and subjective ratings of tiredness. Speech recognition performance and subjective ratings were generally independent of noise configuration. Performance in the omnidirectional setting and pure-tone average were independently related to unilateral beamformer benefits. Those with the lowest performance or the largest degree of hearing loss benefited the most. No factors were significantly related to additional bilateral beamformer benefit.Adaptive bilateral beamformers offer additional advantages over adaptive unilateral beamformers in hearing aids. The small additional advantages with the adaptive beamformer are comparable to those reported in the literature with static beamformers. Although the additional benefits are small, they positively affected subjective ratings of tiredness. These data suggest that adaptive bilateral beamformers have the potential to improve listening in difficult situations for hearing aid users. In addition, patients who struggle the most without beamforming microphones may also benefit the most from the technology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document