scholarly journals Interactions between Cognition and Hearing Aid Compression Release Time: Effects of Linguistic Context of Speech Test Materials on Speech-in-Noise Performance

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-149
Author(s):  
Jingjing Xu ◽  
Robyn M. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Linguistic Context ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Release Times ◽  
Auditory Feature ◽  
Test Materials

Recent research has established a connection between hearing aid (HA) users’ cognition and speech recognition performance with short and long compression release times (RT). Contradictive findings prevent researchers from using cognition to predict RT prescription. We hypothesized that the linguistic context of speech recognition test materials was one of the factors that accounted for the inconsistency. The present study was designed to examine the relationship between HA users’ cognition and their aided speech recognition performance with short and long RTs using materials with various linguistic contexts. Thirty-four older HA users’ cognitive abilities were quantified using a reading span test. They were fitted with behind-the-ear style HAs with adjustable RT settings. Three speech recognition tests were used: the word-in-noise (WIN) test, the American four alternative auditory feature (AFAAF) test, and the Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise (BKB-SIN) test. The results showed that HA users with high cognitive abilities performed better on the AFAAF and the BKB-SIN than those with low cognitive abilities when using short RT. None of the speech recognition tests produced significantly different performance between the two RTs for either cognitive group. These findings did not support our hypothesis. The results suggest that cognition might not be important in prescribing RT.

scholarly journals Effects of Wireless Remote Microphone on Speech Recognition in Noise for Hearing Aid Users in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Zhe Wang ◽  
Ruijuan Dong ◽  
Xinxing Fu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Distance

Objective: This study was aimed at evaluating improvements in speech-in-noise recognition ability as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the use of wireless remote microphone technology. These microphones transmit digital signals via radio frequency directly to hearing aids and may be a valuable assistive listening device for the hearing-impaired population of Mandarin speakers in China.Methods: Twenty-three adults (aged 19–80 years old) and fourteen children (aged 8–17 years old) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. The Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test was used to test speech recognition ability in adult subjects, and the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test for Children was used for children. The subjects’ perceived SNR was measured using sentence recognition ability at three different listening distances of 1.5, 3, and 6 m. At each distance, SNR was obtained under three device settings: hearing aid microphone alone, wireless remote microphone alone, and hearing aid microphone and wireless remote microphone simultaneously.Results: At each test distance, for both adult and pediatric groups, speech-in-noise recognition thresholds were significantly lower with the use of the wireless remote microphone in comparison with the hearing aid microphones alone (P < 0.05), indicating better SNR performance with the wireless remote microphone. Moreover, when the wireless remote microphone was used, test distance had no effect on speech-in-noise recognition for either adults or children.Conclusion: Wireless remote microphone technology can significantly improve speech recognition performance in challenging listening environments for Mandarin speaking hearing aid users in China.

Assessing Release-Time Options in a Two-Channel AGC Hearing Aid

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
John A. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Paired Comparison ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
User Preference ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Release Times

The purpose of this study was to determine whether different release times, as implemented in a commercial two-channel AGC hearing aid, would result in differing speech intelligibility performance, user preference, or use time. In experiment one, 14 subjects were fitted with a two-channel multi-memory AGC hearing aid. Four memories were programmed to have identical frequency responses and output limitation characteristics. Only the release times were varied, with the low channel/high channel set as follows (in ms): 20/35, 20/150, 100/35, 500/7. Results obtained from the NST (+5 S/N), magnitude estimations of intelligibility, and data-logging of use time did not show any release-time pair to be superior to any other. In experiment two, 10 subjects participated in a forced-choice, paired-comparison procedure using the same release-time pairs from experiment one. Auditory stimuli consisted of three input levels, consisting of speech, speech in noise, and music. Results indicated no release-time pair to be superior in any listening condition. Results may be explained, in part, by the use of a curvilinear compression circuit and the milder hearing loss exhibited by the subjects. Future investigation of the effect of release-time variation should be carried out on circuits with adjustable compression parameters (and fixed compression ratios) with listeners exhibiting different degrees of hearing loss.

Influence of audibility and distortion on the recognition of reverberant speech for children and adults with hearing aid amplification

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Brennan ◽  
Ryan Mccreery ◽  
John Massey
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Spectral Distortion ◽  
Release Times ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Amplitude Compression ◽  
Adults And Children

Background: Adults and children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) have trouble understanding speech in rooms with reverberation when using hearing aid amplification. While the use of amplitude compression signal processing in hearing aids may contribute to this difficulty, there is conflicting evidence on the effects of amplitude compression settings on speech recognition. Less clear is the effect of a fast release time for adults and children with SNHL when using compression ratios derived from a prescriptive procedure. Purpose: To determine whether release time impacts speech recognition in reverberation for children and adults with SNHL and to determine if these effects of release time and reverberation can be predicted using indices of audibility or temporal and spectral distortion. Research Design: A quasi-experimental cohort study. Participants used a hearing aid simulator set to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm m[i/o] for three different amplitude compression release times. Reverberation was simulated using three different reverberation times. Participants: Participants were 20 children and 16 adults with SNHL. Data Collection and Analyses: Participants were seated in a sound-attenuating booth and then nonsense syllable recognition was measured. Predictions of speech recognition were made using indices of audibility, temporal distortion, and spectral distortion and the effects of release time and reverberation were analyzed using linear mixed models. Results: While nonsense syllable recognition decreased in reverberation; release time did not significantly affect nonsense syllable recognition. Participants with lower audibility were more susceptible to the negative effect of reverberation on nonsense syllable recognition. Conclusions: We have extended previous work on the effects of reverberation on aided speech recognition to children with SNHL. Variations in release time did not impact the understanding of speech. An index of audibility best predicted nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation and, clinically, these results suggest that patients with less audibility are more susceptible to nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation.

Working Memory Capacity May Influence Perceived Effort during Aided Speech Recognition in Noise

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 577-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rudner ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Thomas Behrens ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén ◽  
Jerker Rönnberg
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Perceived Effort ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity. Purpose: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. Research Design: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. Study Sample: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). Data Collection and Analysis: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort. Conclusions: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.

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 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.

A Comparison of Personal Sound Amplification Products and Hearing Aids in Ecologically Relevant Test Environments

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Brody ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech Intelligibility Index ◽  
Sound Amplification

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the benefit of self-adjusted personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) to audiologist-fitted hearing aids based on speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality in ecologically relevant test conditions to estimate real-world effectiveness. Method Twenty-five older adults with bilateral mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed the single-blinded, crossover study. Participants underwent aided testing using 3 PSAPs and a traditional hearing aid, as well as unaided testing. PSAPs were adjusted based on participant preference, whereas the hearing aid was configured using best-practice verification protocols. Audibility provided by the devices was quantified using the Speech Intelligibility Index (American National Standards Institute, 2012). Outcome measures assessing speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality were administered in ecologically relevant laboratory conditions designed to represent real-world speech listening situations. Results All devices significantly improved Speech Intelligibility Index compared to unaided listening, with the hearing aid providing more audibility than all PSAPs. Results further revealed that, in general, the hearing aid improved speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort significantly more than all PSAPs. Few differences in sound quality were observed between devices. All PSAPs improved speech recognition and listening effort compared to unaided testing. Conclusions Hearing aids fitted using best-practice verification protocols were capable of providing more aided audibility, better speech recognition performance, and lower listening effort compared to the PSAPs tested in the current study. Differences in sound quality between the devices were minimal. However, because all PSAPs tested in the study significantly improved participants' speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort compared to unaided listening, PSAPs could serve as a budget-friendly option for those who cannot afford traditional amplification.

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

Efficacy of Hearing-Aid Based Telephone Strategies for Listeners with Moderate-to-Severe Hearing Loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 059-070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Severe Hearing Loss ◽  
Acoustic Coupling ◽  
Wireless Routing

Background: Understanding speech over the telephone when listening in noisy environments may present a significant challenge for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare speech recognition and subjective ratings across several hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies for individuals with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: Speech recognition and subjective ratings were evaluated for a simulated telephone signal. The strategies evaluated included acoustic telephone, unilateral telecoil, unilateral wireless streaming, and bilateral wireless streaming. Participants were seated in a noisy room for all evaluations. Study Sample: Eighteen adults, aged 49–88 yr, with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition scores on the Connected Speech Test were converted to rationalized arcsine units and analyzed using analysis of variance testing and Tukey post hoc analyses. Subjective ratings of ease and comfort were also analyzed in this manner. Results: Speech recognition performance was poorest with acoustic coupling to the telephone and best with bilateral wireless routing. Telecoil coupling resulted in better speech recognition performance than acoustic coupling, but was significantly poorer than bilateral wireless routing. Furthermore, unilateral wireless routing and telecoil coupling generally led to similar speech recognition performance, except in lower-level background noise conditions, for which unilateral routing resulted in better performance than the telecoil. Conclusions: For people with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss, acoustic telephone listening with a hearing aid may not lead to acceptable performance in noise. Although unilateral routing options (telecoil and wireless streaming) improved performance, speech recognition performance and subjective ratings of ease and comfort were best when bilateral wireless routing was used. These results suggest that wireless routing is a potentially beneficial telephone listening strategy for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss who are fitted with limited venting if the telephone signal is routed to both ears. Unilateral wireless routing may provide similar benefits to traditional unilateral telecoil. However, the newer wireless systems may have the advantage for some listeners in that they do not include some of the positioning constraints associated with telecoil use.

An Evaluation of Several Rationales for Selecting Hearing Aid Gain

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Selection Procedures ◽  
Relative Gain ◽  
Typical Range ◽  
Selection Of

The present study evaluates the rationales underlying several hearing aid selection procedures. The first portion of the evaluation confirms that the gain-selection rationales result in the selection of different hearing aids for a given patient. Nine different audiometric configurations representing varying degrees of fiat, sloping, and rising sensorineural hearing loss were considered. The second phase of the evaluation considered how well each procedure achieved the goal of maximizing speech recognition. This analysis made use of the Articulation Index and was applied to each of the nine audiometric configurations. The results of this analysis suggested that, given the ability to adjust the overall gain over a typical range available through most volume controls, any of the procedures could produce optimal aided speech recognition performance. The final portion of the evaluation examined the ability of each procedure to prescribe absolute gain and relative gain (frequency response) that corresponded to that preferred by hearing aid wearers. The data for preferred insertion gain came from a recent investigation by Leijon, Eriksson-Mangold, an d Beck-Karlsen (1984). The results of this evaluation suggested that some procedures prescribe gain values closer to those preferred by listeners than others. More data are needed on preferred gain values for a variety of configurations, however, before any one procedure can be recommended over another.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document