scholarly journals Environmental Classification in Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 186-205
Author(s):  
Donald Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Good Predictor ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Acoustic Ecology ◽  
Environmental Classification ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Listening Environments

AbstractThere are two parts to this article. The first is a general overview of how hearing aid classification works, including a comparison study of normal-hearing listeners and multiple manufacturers' hearing aids while listening to a sound parkour composed of a multitude of acoustic scenes. Most hearing aids applied nearly identical classification for simple listening environments. But differences began to appear across manufacturers' products when the listening environments became more complex. The second section reviews the results of a study of the acoustic ecology (listening environments) experienced by several cohorts of hearing aid users over a 4-month period. The percentages of time people spent in seven different listening environments were mapped. It was learned that they spent an average of 57% of their time in conversation and that age is not a good predictor of the amount of time spent in most listening environments. This is because, when grouped by age, there was little to no difference in the distribution of time spent in the seven listening environments, whereas there was tremendous variability within each age group.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Measurements of Loudness Growth in 1/2-Octave Bands for Children and Adults With Normal Hearing

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melisa R. Ellis ◽  
Michael K. Wynne
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Lower Boundary ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Boundary Values ◽  
Simple Modification ◽  
Point Data ◽  
Loudness Growth

The loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB) procedure has been shown previously to provide valid estimates of loudness growth for adults with normal hearing and those with hearing loss (Allen, Hall, & Jeng, 1990), and it has been widely incorporated into fitting strategies for adult hearing aid users by a hearing aid manufacturer. Here, we applied a simple modification of LGOB to children and adults with normal hearing and then compared the loudness growth functions (as obtained from end-point data) between the two age groups. In addition, reliability data obtained within a single session and between test sessions were compared between the two groups. Large differences were observed in the means between the two groups for the lower boundary values, the upper boundary values, and the range between boundaries both within and across all frequencies. The data obtained from children also had greater variance than the adult data. In addition, there was more variability in the data across test sessions for children. Many test-retest differences for children exceeded 10 dB. Adult test-retest differences were generally less than 10 dB. Although the LGOB with the modifications used in this study may be used to measure loudness growth in children, its poor reliability with this age group may limit its clinical use for children with hearing loss. Additional work is needed to explore whether loudness growth measures can be adapted successfully to children and whether these measures contribute worthwhile information for fitting hearing aids to children.

Verification of In Situ Thresholds and Integrated Real-Ear Measurements

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 663-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. DiGiovanni ◽  
Ryan M. Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Measurement System ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Ohio University ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Threshold Measurement

Background: Accurate prescriptive gain results in a more accurate fit, lower return rate in hearing aids, and increased patient satisfaction. In situ threshold measurements can be used to determine required gain. The Widex Corporation uses an in situ threshold measurement strategy, called the Sensogram. Real-ear measurements determine if prescriptive gain targets have been achieved. Starkey Laboratories introduced an integrated real-ear measurement system in their hearing aids. Purpose: To determine whether the responses obtained using the Widex Sensogram were equivalent to those obtained using current clinical threshold measurement methods. To determine the accuracy of the Starkey IREMS™ (Integrated Real Ear Measurement System) in measuring RECD (real-ear to coupler difference) values compared to a dedicated real-ear measurement system. Research Design: A verification design was employed by comparing participant data measured from standard, benchmark equipment and procedures against new techniques offered by hearing-aid manufacturers. Study Sample: A total of 20 participants participated in this study. Ten participants with sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from the Ohio University Hearing, Speech, and Language Clinic participated in the first experiment. Ten participants with normal hearing were recruited from the student population at Ohio University participated in both experiments. The normal-hearing group had thresholds of 15 dB HL or better at the octave frequencies of 250–8000 Hz. The hearing-impaired group had thresholds of varying degrees and configurations with thresholds equal to or poorer than 25 dB HL three-frequency pure-tone average. Data Collection and Analysis: The order of measurement method for both experiments was counterbalanced. In Experiment 1, thresholds obtained via the Widex Sensogram were compared to thresholds obtained for each participant using a clinical audiometer and ER-3A insert ear phones. In Experiment 2, RECD values obtained via the Starkey IREMS were compared to RECD values obtained via the Audioscan Verifit™. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis, and a Fisher's LSD (least significant difference) was used as a post hoc analysis tool. Results: A significant difference between Sensogram thresholds and conventional audiometric thresholds was found with the Sensogram method resulting in better threshold values at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 kHz for both groups. In Experiment 2, a significant difference between RECD values obtained by the Starkey IREMS and the Audioscan Verifit system was found with significant differences in RECD values found at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.5, 2.0, and 6.0 kHz. Conclusions: The Sensogram data differ significantly from traditional audiometry at several frequencies important for speech intelligibility. Real-ear measures are still required for verification of prescribed gain, however, calling into question any claims of shortened fitting time. The Starkey IREMS does perform real-ear measurements that vary significantly from benchmark equipment. These technologies represent a positive direction in prescribing accurate gain during hearing-aid fittings, but a stand-alone system is still the preferred method for real-ear measurements in hearing-aid fittings.

Noise Exposure Associated With Hearing Aid Use in Industry

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Dolan ◽  
James F. Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
High Gain ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Weighted Averages ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Level Meter

Although noise may be innocuous in many vocational environments, there is a growing concern in industry that it can reach hazardous levels when amplified by hearing aids. This study examined the daily noise exposures associated with hearing aid use in industry. This was done by both laboratory and site measurements in which hearing aids were coupled to the microphone of an integrating sound level meter or dosimeter. The former method involved the use of recorded railroad and manufacturing noise and a Bruel and Kjaer 4128 Head and Torso simulator. In the latter procedure, a worker wore one of three hearing aids coupled to a dosimeter during 8-hour shifts in a manufacturing plant. Both methods demonstrated that even when amplified by mild-gain hearing aids, noise exposures rose from time-weighted averages near 80 dBA to well above the OSHA maximum of 90 dBA. The OSHA maximum was also exceeded when moderate and high gain instruments were worn in non-occupational listening environments. The results suggest that current OSHA regulations that limit noise exposure in sound field are inappropriate for hearing aid users.

scholarly journals The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Mariya Yu. Boboshko ◽  
Irina P. Berdnikova ◽  
Natalya V. Maltzeva
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives -to determine the normative data of sentence speech intelligibility in a free sound field and to estimate the applicability of the Russian Matrix Sentence test (RuMatrix) for assessment of the hearing aid fitting benefit. Material and methods. 10 people with normal hearing and 28 users of hearing aids with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were involved in the study. RuMatrix test both in quiet and in noise was performed in a free sound field. All patients filled in the COSI questionnaire. Results. The hearing impaired patients were divided into two subgroups: the 1st with high and the 2nd with low hearing aid benefit, according to the COSI questionnaire. In the 1st subgroup, the threshold for the sentence intelligibility in quiet was 34.9 ± 6.4 dB SPL, and in noise -3.3 ± 1.4 dB SNR, in the 2nd subgroup 41.7 ± 11.5 dB SPL and 0.15 ± 3.45 dB SNR, respectively. The significant difference between the data of both subgroups and the norm was registered (p

Professional and Lay Observers' Impressions of Preschoolers Wearing Hearing Aids

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Gordon W. Blood ◽  
Ingrid M. Blood ◽  
Nancy Gomez
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Semantic Differential Scale ◽  
Body Type ◽  
Factor I ◽  
Factor Ii ◽  
Photographic Slides

This study determined whether professional and lay observers had similar impressions of preschoolers wearing hearing aids and if the size of the aid affected ratings. Stimuli consisted of three photographic slides of nine normally-hearing and speaking male preschoolers wearing (1) a body-type hearing aid, (2) a post-auricular type aid, and (3) no aid. Slides were accompanied by taped speech samples. Stimuli were presented to 75 professional and 75 lay observers who rated the children on a semantic differential scale containing 15 adjectives. Ratings were submitted to a factor analysis revealing Factor I as achievement and Factor II as appearance. Results of MANOVAs revealed that neither professional nor lay observers discriminated against the children on appearance regardless of the presence of a hearing aid, but that both groups rated them significantly poorer on achievement when an aid was present. Lay observers' ratings showed a bias against the size of the aid, while professionals exhibited negative impressions whenever an aid was present, regardless of its size. These findings indicate that the "hearing aid effect" was present on variables of achievement even for normal-hearing preschoolers.

The Relationship between the Acceptance of Noise and Acoustic Environments in Young Adults with Normal Hearing: A Pilot Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 584-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Franklin ◽  
Letitia J. White ◽  
Thomas C. Franklin ◽  
Laura Smith-Olinde
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
Different Characteristics

Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) indicates how much background noise a listener is willing to accept while listening to speech. The clinical impact and application of the ANL measure is as a predictor of hearing-aid use. The ANL may also correlate with the percentage of time spent in different listening environments (i.e., quiet, noisy, noisy with speech present, etc). Information retrieved from data logging could confirm this relationship. Data logging, using sound scene analysis, is a method of monitoring the different characteristics of the listening environments that a hearing-aid user experiences during a period. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the ANL procedure reflects the proportion of time a person spends in different acoustic environments. Research Design: This was a descriptive quasi-experimental design to collect pilot data in which participants were asked to maintain their regular, daily activities while wearing a data-logging device. Study Sample: After completing the ANL measurement, 29 normal-hearing listeners were provided a data-logging device and were instructed on its proper use. Data Collection/Analysis: ANL measures were obtained along with the percentage of time participants spent in listening environments classified as quiet, speech-in-quiet, speech-in-noise, and noise via a data-logging device. Results: An analysis of variance using a general linear model indicated that listeners with low ANL values spent more time in acoustic environments in which background noise was present than did those with high ANL values; the ANL data did not indicate differences in how much time listeners spent in environments of differing intensities. Conclusions: To some degree, the ANL is reflective of the acoustic environments and the amount of noise that the listener is willing to accept; data logging illustrates the acoustic environments in which the listener was present. Clinical implications include, but are not limited to, decisions in patient care regarding the need for additional counseling and/or the use of digital noise reduction and directional microphone technology.

scholarly journals Effect of hearing aids on body balance function in non-reverberant condition: A posturographic study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258590
Author(s):  
Chihiro Ninomiya ◽  
Harukazu Hiraumi ◽  
Kiyoshi Yonemoto ◽  
Hiroaki Sato
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Center Of Pressure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Balance Function ◽  
Maximum Displacement ◽  
Body Balance ◽  
Foam Rubber ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Eyes Open

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of hearing aids on body balance function in a strictly controlled auditory environment. Methods We recorded the findings of 10 experienced hearing aid users and 10 normal-hearing participants. All the participants were assessed using posturography under eight conditions in an acoustically shielded non-reverberant room: (1) eyes open with sound stimuli, with and without foam rubber, (2) eyes closed with sound stimuli, with and without foam rubber, (3) eyes open without sound stimuli, with and without foam rubber, and (4) eyes closed without sound stimuli, with and without foam rubber. Results The auditory cue improved the total path area and sway velocity in both the hearing aid users and normal-hearing participants. The analysis of variance showed that the interaction among eye condition, sound condition, and between-group factor was significant in the maximum displacement of the center-of-pressure in the mediolateral axis (F [1, 18] = 6.19, p = 0.02). The maximum displacement of the center-of-pressure in the mediolateral axis improved with the auditory cues in the normal-hearing participants in the eyes closed condition (5.4 cm and 4.7 cm, p < 0.01). In the hearing aid users, this difference was not significant (5.9 cm and 5.7 cm, p = 0.45). The maximum displacement of the center-of-pressure in the anteroposterior axis improved in both the hearing aid users and the normal-hearing participants.

scholarly journals Young Children's Attitudes Toward Peers Who Wear Hearing Aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey R. Wheeler ◽  
Anne Marie Tharpe
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Peer Acceptance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Rating Task ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Physical Competence ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Additional Support

Purpose This study examined whether young children with normal hearing demonstrated negative attitudes toward peers wearing hearing aids, often described as the “hearing aid effect.” The effect of age on these attitudes was also examined. Method Forty-five typically developing children with normal hearing, aged 6–11 years, were recruited to answer questions about and rate photos of children with and without hearing aids in areas of peer acceptance as well as physical and cognitive competence. Participants completed a forced-choice task, a perceived competence rating task, and a sociometric rating task. Results Children in this study perceived their peers who wore hearing aids as having less physical competence and less peer acceptance than peers without hearing aids, thus confirming a hearing aid effect in children as young as 6 years of age. Both younger and older children were more likely to choose pictures of children wearing hearing aids as having less peer acceptance than pictures of children who were not wearing hearing aids. Older children were also more likely to choose a picture of a child with hearing aids as having less physical competence than a picture of a child without hearing aids. Conclusion These findings should serve to alert professionals who work with children who have hearing loss that additional support and education might be warranted for these children and their peers with normal hearing.

Effects of Adaptive Hearing Aid Directionality and Noise Reduction on Masked Speech Recognition for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Browning ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Mary Flaherty ◽  
Tim Vallier ◽  
Lori J. Leibold
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Fully Adaptive ◽  
Noise Ratio

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech recognition associated with activation of a fully adaptive directional hearing aid algorithm in children with mild to severe bilateral sensory/neural hearing loss. Method Fourteen children (5–14 years old) who are hard of hearing participated in this study. Participants wore laboratory hearing aids. Open-set word recognition thresholds were measured adaptively for 2 hearing aid settings: (a) omnidirectional (OMNI) and (b) fully adaptive directionality. Each hearing aid setting was evaluated in 3 listening conditions. Fourteen children with normal hearing served as age-matched controls. Results Children who are hard of hearing required a more advantageous signal-to-noise ratio than children with normal hearing to achieve comparable performance in all 3 conditions. For children who are hard of hearing, the average improvement in signal-to-noise ratio when comparing fully adaptive directionality to OMNI was 4.0 dB in noise, regardless of target location. Children performed similarly with fully adaptive directionality and OMNI settings in the presence of the speech maskers. Conclusions Compared to OMNI, fully adaptive directionality improved speech recognition in steady noise for children who are hard of hearing, even when they were not facing the target source. This algorithm did not affect speech recognition when the background noise was speech. Although the use of hearing aids with fully adaptive directionality is not proposed as a substitute for remote microphone systems, it appears to offer several advantages over fixed directionality, because it does not depend on children facing the target talker and provides access to multiple talkers within the environment. Additional experiments are required to further evaluate children's performance under a variety of spatial configurations in the presence of both noise and speech maskers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document