scholarly journals A Study on the Korean Conversation Speech Level and Spectrum in Sound-Treated Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Kwon Han ◽  
Kyoungwon Lee

Purpose: Several studies have reported the differences between Korean and other countries’ speech in long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) and band importance function. Authors tried to identify the conversational speech level, the resulting spectrum, and the LTASS for Korean. The purpose of this study was to support the production of a Korean-type hearing aid fitting formula to effectively improve the sound quality of hearing aids and the communication abilities with hearing aids, and to standardize the sound stimuli required to measure the performance of hearing aids. Methods: A total of 73 participants with normal hearing and with no specific voice and language deficits was voluntarily recruited from capital, Gyeongsang and Jeolla areas. The conversational speech level was measured by vocalizing ‘soft,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘raised,’ and ‘loud’ at a distance of 1.0 m from the speaker. And LTASS was measured by vocalizing it at a distance of 0.2 m from the speaker. Results: There was a difference in the mean of males and females in the conversation level, but no significant regional differences were shown. The conversational speech level corresponding to 30th, 65th, and 99th percentiles was 59.67, 64.74, and 79.07 dB sound pressure level, respectively. And the speech spectrum of 30th, 65th, and 99th percentile and LTASS showed in different forms from the international speech test signal. Conclusion: The results of this study should help to calculate the Korean type hearing aid fitting formula and should be used as the basic data to determine the characteristics of the sound stimuli when measuring the performance of the hearing aid.

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652093246
Author(s):  
Johanna Hengen ◽  
Inger L. Hammarström ◽  
Stefan Stenfelt

Dissatisfaction with the sound of one’s own voice is common among hearing-aid users. Little is known regarding how hearing impairment and hearing aids separately affect own-voice perception. This study examined own-voice perception and associated issues before and after a hearing-aid fitting for new hearing-aid users and refitting for experienced users to investigate whether it was possible to differentiate between the effect of (unaided) hearing impairment and hearing aids. Further aims were to investigate whether First-Time and Experienced users as well as users with dome and mold inserts differed in the severity of own-voice problems. The study had a cohort design with three groups: First-Time hearing-aid users going from unaided to aided hearing ( n = 70), Experienced hearing-aid users replacing their old hearing aids ( n = 70), and an unaided control group ( n = 70). The control group was surveyed once and the hearing-aid users twice; once before hearing-aid fitting/refitting and once after. The results demonstrated that own-voice problems are common among both First-Time and Experienced hearing-aid users with either dome- or mold-type fittings, while people with near-normal hearing and not using hearing aids report few problems. Hearing aids increased ratings of own-voice problems among First-Time users, particularly those with mold inserts. The results suggest that altered auditory feedback through unaided hearing impairment or through hearing aids is likely both to change own-voice perception and complicate regulation of vocal intensity, but hearing aids are the primary reason for poor perceived sound quality of one’s own voice.


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.


1989 ◽  
Vol 103 (9) ◽  
pp. 850-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. L. L. Harries ◽  
D. M. Baguley ◽  
D. A. Moffat

AbstractAn analysis of a series of 100 patients aged 60 years or over, referred by their General Practitioner to the Department of Otolaryngology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, specifically for the provision of a hearing aid, is presented.Forty-six per cent of patients failed to satisfy the criteria suggested by the Technicians, Therapists and Scientists in Audiology as a screening for treatable pathology.This study has shown that the existing referral pattern of general practitioner to consultant otolaryngologist for the provision of a hearing aid reflects the highest quality of care for the patient.Direct referral or open access of patients for hearing aid fitting may risk failure to diagnose early and treatable conditions.


1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Davis ◽  
Rhonda Jackson ◽  
Tina Smith ◽  
William Cooper

Prior studies have proven the existence of the "hearing aid effect" when photographs of Caucasian males and females wearing a body aid, a post-auricular aid (behind-the-ear), or no hearing aid were judged by lay persons and professionals. This study was performed to determine if African American and Caucasian males, judged by female members of their own race, were likely to be judged in a similar manner on the basis of appearance, personality, assertiveness, and achievement. Sixty female undergraduate education majors (30 African American; 30 Caucasian) used a semantic differential scale to rate slides of preteen African American and Caucasian males, with and without hearing aids. The results of this study showed that female African American and Caucasian judges rated males of their respective races differently. The hearing aid effect was predominant among the Caucasian judges across the dimensions of appearance, personality, assertiveness, and achievement. In contrast, the African American judges only exhibited a hearing aid effect on the appearance dimension.


1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Risberg ◽  
Robyn M. Cox

A custom in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid fitting was compared to two over-the-ear (OTE) hearing aid fittings for each of 9 subjects with mild to moderately severe hearing losses. Speech intelligibility via the three instruments was compared using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test. The relationship between functional gain and coupler gain was compared for the ITE and the higher rated OTE instruments. The difference in input received at the microphone locations of the two types of hearing aids was measured for 10 different subjects and compared to the functional gain data. It was concluded that (a) for persons with mild to moderately severe hearing losses, appropriately adjusted custom ITE fittings typically yield speech intelligibility that is equal to the better OTE fitting identified in a comparative evaluation; and (b) gain prescriptions for ITE hearing aids should be adjusted to account for the high-frequency emphasis associated with in-the-concha microphone placement.


1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedda Aufricht

A recent development in hearing aids, the contralateral routing of signals (CROS), makes it possible to provide amplification for persons with unilateral hearing loss. In 1967, a CROS eyeglass hearing aid was placed on government contract and made available to veterans. To study the efficiency of the CROS, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to 60 male veterans who had been fitted with this aid. All had demonstrated unilateral hearing losses, and the mean threshold for the speech frequencies (500–2000 Hz) in the good ear was 24 dB. The 54 replies (90%) indicated that 85% wore the aid, liked it, and derived benefit from it; 15% neither liked nor wore the aid. The CROS appeared to be most helpful in listening to conversational speech and at work, and most disturbing in a noisy environment. The complaints about the aid fell into major categories: 33% objected to its poor fit and construction and 11% were disturbed by speech distortion. The CROS aid has been a useful addition to the hearing-aid stock at the clinic reported here. It has expanded the program by providing amplification to veterans who could not be fitted with the conventional stock of aids.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raul Sanchez-Lopez ◽  
Michal Fereczkowski ◽  
Sébastien Santurette ◽  
Torsten Dau ◽  
Tobias Neher

AbstractObjectiveThe clinical characterization of hearing deficits for hearing-aid fitting purposes is typically based on the pure-tone audiogram only. In a previous study, a group of hearing-impaired listeners were tested using a comprehensive test battery designed to tap into different aspects of hearing. A data-driven analysis of the data yielded four clinically relevant patient subpopulations or “auditory profiles”. In the current study, profile-based hearing-aid settings were proposed and evaluated to explore their potential for providing more targeted hearing-aid treatment.DesignFour candidate hearing-aid settings were implemented and evaluated by a subset of the participants tested previously. The evaluation consisted of multi-comparison preference ratings carried out in realistic sound scenarios.ResultsListeners belonging to the different auditory profiles showed different patterns of preference for the tested hearing-aid settings that were largely consistent with the expectations.ConclusionThe results of this proof-of-concept study support further investigations into stratified, profile-based hearing-aid fitting with wearable hearing aids.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Eojini Bang ◽  
Kyoungwon Lee

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the preferred real-ear insertion gain for Korean (PREIG-K) wearing multi-channel hearing aid with the National Acoustics Laboratories-Non-Linear version 2 (NAL-NL2; National Acoustic Laboratories) gains in order to develop Korean hearing aid fitting formula.Methods: A total of thirty one (62 ears) Korean hearing aid users were included in this study. All subjects wore in-the-canal or custom hearing aids in both ears. Individual hearing aid fitting procedures involved to adjust the gains for 50, 65, and 80 dB sound pressure level of speech across low, high, and wideband frequency bands based on participant’s subjective responses. In addition, only the high frequency bands of 1 kHz or more of the PREIG-K were re-adjusted to be the same as NAL-NL2 gain and then the word recognition scores (WRSs) were compared before and after the adjusting gain. Results: The results showed that the PREIG-K increased up to 1.5 kHz with the maximum amount, then the PREIG-K decreased across the frequencies. For all half octave frequencies, the PREIG-Ks were substantially less than the NAL-NL2. When the PREIG-K of high frequencies were re-adjusted same as the NAL-NL2 gains, the WRSs of the PREIG-K were not significantly different before and after gain adjustment. The slopes up to 1.5 kHz frequencies of the PREIG-K were steeper than the slopes of NAL-NL2 gain, however similar to the slope of manufactures’ fitting formulae.Conclusion: The development of an effective hearing aid fitting formula for improving the communication abilities of hearing-impaired Korean will require further experiments considering the language, physical characteristics, and word recognition used by Koreans.


1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 679-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Frances M. Tucker ◽  
Tomasz R. Letowski

One of the frequently quoted reasons for the rejection of hearing aids is amplification of background noise. The relationship between hearing aid use and toleration of background noise was assessed. Four groups of elderly subjects (at least 65 years old) and one group of young subjects with normal hearing participated in the study. Each group consisted of 15 subjects. The young subjects and elderly subjects in one group with relatively good hearing were tested for comparison with the hearing-impaired subjects. Elderly subjects in the three remaining groups had acquired hearing losses and had been fitted with hearing aids. The subjects were assigned to three groups on the basis of hearing aid use: full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers. The amount of background noise tolerated when listening to speech was tested. The speech stimulus was a story read by a woman and set at an individually chosen most comfortable level. The maskers were a babble of voices, speech-spectrum noise, traffic noise, music, and the noise of a pneumatic drill. There was a significant interaction between groups and noises. The full-time users tolerated significantly higher levels of music and speech-spectrum noise than part-time users and nonusers. In addition, the full-time users, but not the part-time users, assessed themselves as less handicapped in everyday functions when they wore hearing aids than when they did not wear their hearing aids


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijayalakshmi Easwar ◽  
David W. Purcell ◽  
Susan D. Scollie

Background. Functioning of nonlinear hearing aids varies with characteristics of input stimuli. In the past decade, aided speech evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) have been proposed for validation of hearing aid fittings. However, unlike in running speech, phonemes presented as stimuli during CAEP testing are preceded by silent intervals of over one second. Hence, the present study aimed to compare if hearing aids process phonemes similarly in running speech and in CAEP testing contexts.Method. A sample of ten hearing aids was used. Overall phoneme level and phoneme onset level of eight phonemes in both contexts were compared at three input levels representing conversational speech levels.Results. Differences of over 3 dB between the two contexts were noted in one-fourth of the observations measuring overall phoneme levels and in one-third of the observations measuring phoneme onset level. In a majority of these differences, output levels of phonemes were higher in the running speech context. These differences varied across hearing aids.Conclusion. Lower output levels in the isolation context may have implications for calibration and estimation of audibility based on CAEPs. The variability across hearing aids observed could make it challenging to predict differences on an individual basis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document