scholarly journals The Effect of Digital Noise Reduction on Annoyance and Speech Perception in Low and High Acceptable Noise Level Groups

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. e433-e439
Author(s):  
Hemanth Narayan Shetty ◽  
Navya Bilijagalemole Nanjundaswamy
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Strong Negative Correlation ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Introduction Studies have reported that although speech perception in noise was unaltered with and without digital noise reduction (DNR), the annoyance toward noise measured by acceptable noise level (ANL) was significantly improved by DNR with the range between 2.5 and 4.5 dB. It is unclear whether a similar improvement would be observed in those individuals who have an ANL ≥ 14 dB (predictive of poor hearing aid user) often rejects their aid because of annoyance toward noise. Objectives (a) To determine the effect of activation of DNR on the improvement in the aided ANL from low- and high-ANL groups; and (b) to predict the change in ANL when DNR was activated. Method Ten bilateral mild to severe sloping sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) participants in each of the low- and high-ANL groups were involved. These participants were bilaterally fitted with receiver in canal (RIC) hearing aids (Oticon, Smorum, Egedal, Denmark) with a DNR processor. Both SNR-50% (Signal to noise ratio (in dB) required to achieve 50 % speech recognition) and ANL were assessed in DNR-on and DNR-off listening conditions. Results Digital noise reduction has no effect on SNR-50 in each group. The annoyance level was significantly reduced in the DNR-on than DNR-off condition in the low-ANL group. In the high-ANL group, a strong negative correlation was observed between the ANL in DNR off and a change in ANL after DNR was employed in the hearing aid (benefit). The benefit of DNR on annoyance can be effectively predicted by baseline-aided ANL by linear regression. Conclusion Digital noise reduction reduced the annoyance level in the high-ANL group, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline-aided ANL value.

Comparison of Speech Perception in Background Noise With Acceptance of Background Noise in Aided and Unaided Conditions

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1001-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level

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. KEY WORDS : background noise, hearing aids, acceptable noise level, speech perception in noise

scholarly journals Sentence Recognition in Noise and Perceived Benefit of Noise Reduction on the Receiver and Transmitter Sides of a BICROS Hearing Aid

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 980-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the past, bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BICROS) amplification incorporated omnidirectional microphones on the transmitter and receiver sides and some models utilized noise reduction (NR) on the receiver side. Little research has examined the performance of BICROS amplification in background noise. However, previous studies examining contralateral routing of signals (CROS) amplification have reported that the presence of background noise on the transmitter side negatively affected speech recognition. Recently, NR was introduced as a feature on the receiver and transmitter sides of BICROS amplification, which has the potential to decrease the impact of noise on the wanted speech signal by decreasing unwanted noise directed to the transmitter side. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to examine differences in the reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in a diffuse listening environment between unaided and three aided BICROS conditions (no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR) in the Tandem 16 BICROS. A secondary goal was to examine real-world subjective impressions of the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided. Research Design: A randomized block repeated measures single blind design was used to assess differences between no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR listening conditions. Study Sample: Twenty-one adult participants with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) and experience with BICROS amplification were recruited from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were fit with the National Acoustic Laboratories’ Nonlinear version 1 prescriptive target (NAL-NL1) with the Tandem 16 BICROS at the initial visit and then verified using real-ear insertion gain (REIG) measures. Participants acclimatized to the Tandem 16 BICROS for 4 wk before returning for final testing. Participants were tested utilizing HINT sentences examining differences in RTS between unaided and three aided listening conditions. Subjective benefit was determined via the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire between the Tandem 16 BICROS and unaided. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to analyze the results of the HINT and APHAB. Results: Results revealed no significant differences in the RTS between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. Subjective impressions using the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit with the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided for the Ease of Communication (EC), Background Noise (BN), and Reverberation (RV) subscales. Conclusions: The RTS was not significantly different between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. None of the three aided listening conditions were significantly different from unaided performance as has been reported for previous studies examining CROS hearing aids. Further, based on comments from participants and previous research studies with conventional hearing aids, manufacturers of BICROS amplification should consider incorporating directional microphones and independent volume controls on the receiver and transmitter sides to potentially provide further improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for patients with ASNHL.

Hearing Impaired Children's Preference for, and Performance with, Four Combinations of Directional Microphone and Digital Noise Reduction Technology

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (09) ◽  
pp. 832-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Pittman ◽  
Mollie M. Hiipakka
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Noise Management

Background: Before advanced noise-management features can be recommended for use in children with hearing loss, evidence regarding their ability to use these features to optimize speech perception is necessary. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between children's preference for, and performance with, four combinations of noise-management features in noisy listening environments. Research Design: Children with hearing loss were asked to repeat short sentences presented in steady-state noise or in multitalker babble while wearing ear-level hearing aids. The aids were programmed with four memories having an orthogonal arrangement of two noise-management features. The children were also asked to indicate the hearing aid memory that they preferred in each of the listening conditions both initially and after a short period of use. Study Sample: Fifteen children between the ages of 8 and 12 yr with moderate hearing losses, bilaterally. Results: The children's preference for noise management aligned well with their performance for at least three of the four listening conditions. The configuration of noise-management features had little effect on speech perception with the exception of reduced performance for speech originating from behind the child while in a directional hearing aid setting. Additionally, the children's preference appeared to be governed by listening comfort, even under conditions for which a benefit was not expected such as the use of digital noise reduction in the multitalker babble conditions. Conclusions: The results serve as evidence in support of the use of noise-management features in grade-school children as young as 8 yr of age.

Loudness as a Cue for Acceptable Noise Levels

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 605-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Martin F. McKinney ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Matched Data ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Different Levels

Background/Purpose: The acceptable noise level (ANL) test is the only test that is known to predict success with hearing aids with a high degree of accuracy. A person’s ANL is the maximal amount of background noise that he or she is “willing to put up with” while listening to running speech. It is defined as the speech level minus the noise level, in decibels (dB). People who are willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas people who are not willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. If it were known what cues that listeners are using to decide how much background noise they are willing to tolerate, then it might be possible to create technology that reduces these cues and improves listeners’ chances of success with hearing aids. As a first step toward this goal, this study investigated whether listeners are using loudness as a cue to determine their ANLs. Research Design and Study Sample: Twenty-one individuals with normal hearing and 21 individuals with sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. In each group of 21 participants, 7 had a low ANL (<7 dB), 7 had a mid ANL (7–13 dB), and 7 had a high ANL (>13 dB). Data Collection/Analysis: Participants performed a modified version of the ANL in which the speech was fixed at four different levels (50, 63, 75 and 88 dBA), and participants adjusted the background noise (multitalker babble) to the maximal level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. These results were compared with participants’ equal-loudness contours for the multitalker babble in the presence of speech. Equal-loudness contours were measured by having the participants perform a loudness-matching task in which they matched the level of the background noise (multitalker babble), played concurrently with speech, to a reference condition (also multitalker babble). During the test condition, the speech played at 50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA. All testing was performed in a sound booth with the speech and the noise presented from a loudspeaker at a 0° azimuth, 3 feet in front of the participant. Each condition was presented multiple times, and the results were averaged. Presentation order was randomized. Participants were tested unaided. Results: Participants' ANLs were compared with their equal-loudness contours for the background noise. ANLs that ran parallel to the equal-loudness contours were considered consistent with a loudness-based listening strategy. This pattern was observed for only two participants – both hearing-impaired. Conclusions: The majority of listeners showed no consistent trend between their ANLs and their loudness-matched data, suggesting that they are using cues other than loudness to determine their ANLs. ANLs were consistent with loudness-matched data for a small subset of listeners, suggesting that they may be using loudness as a cue for determining their ANLs.

Effect of Maximum Power Output and Noise Reduction on Speech Recognition in Noise

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (05) ◽  
pp. 265-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Heidi Peeters ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Maximum Power ◽  
Maximum Power Output ◽  
Bonferroni Adjustment

Background: The maximum power output (MPO) of a hearing aid was typically discussed in the context of avoiding loudness discomfort. However, an MPO that is too low, as in the cases to avoid discomfort for people with a severe loudness tolerance problem and hearing losses that exceed the fitting range of the hearing aids, could negatively affect sound quality and speech intelligibility in noise. Purpose: The current study was designed to demonstrate the degradation in speech intelligibility in noise on the HINT (Hearing in Noise Test) when the MPO of the wearers' hearing aids was lowered by 10 dB from the default. The interactions with noise reduction (NR) algorithms (classic [NR-classic] and Speech Enhancer [NR-SE]) were also examined. Research Design: A single-blinded, factorial repeated-measures design was used to study the effect of noise input level (68 dBC, 75 dBC), MPO setting (default and default-10), and NR algorithm (off, classic, SE) on HINT performance. Study Sample: Eleven adults with a severe sensorineural hearing loss participated. Intervention: Participants were fit with the Widex m4-19 behind-the-ear hearing aids binaurally in the default frequency response and MPO settings. The hearing aids were adjusted to six MPO (default, default-10) by NR (off, classic, SE conditions). Testing was completed within one 2 hr session. Data Collection and Analysis: The RTS (reception threshold for speech) for 50% correct on the HINT was measured in each of the six hearing aid conditions at two input levels (68 and 75 dBC) with speech and noise stimuli presented from the front. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted using SPSS software to examine significant differences. Results: A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that noise level was not significant while NR algorithm and MPO were significant. The interaction between noise level and NR algorithm was also significant. Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment for the effect of NR algorithm showed that performance with NR-off was significantly poorer than performance with NR-classic and NR-SE (p < 0.05). However, NR-classic and NR-SE were not significantly different from each other (p > 0.05). Conclusions: An MPO that was 10 dB lower than the default could negatively affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the listening environment. However, NR could compensate for the degradation in SNR.

scholarly journals The Effects of Hearing Aid Digital Noise Reduction and Directionality on Acceptable Noise Level

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roghayeh Ahmadi ◽  
Hamid Jalilvand ◽  
Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi ◽  
Fatemeh Ahmadi ◽  
Ali Reza Akbarzade Baghban
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level

scholarly journals Assessment of acceptable noise level in unilateral hearing aid users

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumars Akaberi ◽  
Hamid Jalilvand ◽  
Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi ◽  
Ahmadreza Nazeri1 ◽  
Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Deprivation ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Mean

Background and Aim: It is well known that hearing aid fitting is an effective approach to improve the communication ability of hearingimpaired people. In the past, most of the hearing aids were fitted unilaterally rather than bilaterally. Whereas the unilateral hearing aid fitting improves verbal communication partially, it causes late-onset auditory deprivation. The main aim of this study is to investigate the ANL for each ear among the users with unilateral hearing aid experience. Methods: A total of 23 participants were recruited (14 females, 9 males). The mean age was 74.65 years (ranged from 41 to 83). All subjects had bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. The most comfortable level (MCL), Background Noise Level (BNL), and acceptable noise level (ANL) were measured for ear with amplification experience and ear without experience. Results: MCL, BNL and ANL in the aided ear was 82.22, 73.48 and 8.74 respectively, in addition in the unaided ear the results for MCL, BNL and ANL was 81.78, 72.13 and 9.65 respectively. Comparing the mean values of MCL, BNL and ANL between two ears showed no significant difference. Conclusion: There was not any difference for BNL and ANL measures Keywords: Bilateral hearing loss; acceptable noise level; late onset auditory deprivation; Hearing aid 

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Self-Adjustment: Effects of Formal Speech-Perception Test and Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652093054
Author(s):  
Carol L. Mackersie ◽  
Arthur Boothroyd ◽  
Harinath Garudadri
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Online Processing ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Monosyllabic Words ◽  
Response Amplification

While listening to recorded sentences with a sound-field level of 65 dB SPL, 24 adults with hearing-aid experience used the “Goldilocks” explore-and-select procedure to adjust level and spectrum of amplified speech to preference. All participants started adjustment from the same generic response. Amplification was provided by a custom-built Master Hearing Aid with online processing of microphone input. Primary goals were to assess the effects of including a formal speech-perception test between repeated self-adjustments and of adding multitalker babble (signal-to-noise ratio +6 dB) during self-adjustment. The speech test did not affect group-mean self-adjusted output, which was close to the National Acoustics Laboratories’ prescription for Non-Linear hearing aids. Individuals, however, showed a wide range of deviations from this prescription. Extreme deviations at the first self-adjustment fell by a small but significant amount at the second. The multitalker babble had negligible effect on group-mean self-selected output but did have predictable effects on word recognition in sentences and on participants’ opinion regarding the most important subjective criterion guiding self-adjustment. Phoneme recognition in monosyllabic words was better with the generic starting response than without amplification and improved further after self-adjustment. The findings continue to support the efficacy of hearing aid self-fitting, at least for level and spectrum. They do not support the need for inclusion of a formal speech-perception test, but they do support the value of completing more than one self-adjustment. Group-mean data did not indicate a need for threshold-based prescription as a starting point for self-adjustment.

Acceptable Noise Level as a Measure of Directional Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (04) ◽  
pp. 228-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield ◽  
James W. Thelin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Difference ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Binaural Hearing Aids ◽  
Directional 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° and 180° 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document