The Effects of Hearing Aid Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Processing on Listening Effort in Older Adults with Hearing Loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (01) ◽  
pp. 029-041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Desjardins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Directional Microphone

Background: Older listeners with hearing loss may exert more cognitive resources to maintain a level of listening performance similar to that of younger listeners with normal hearing. Unfortunately, this increase in cognitive load, which is often conceptualized as increased listening effort, may come at the cost of cognitive processing resources that might otherwise be available for other tasks. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the independent and combined effects of a hearing aid directional microphone and a noise reduction (NR) algorithm on reducing the listening effort older listeners with hearing loss expend on a speech-in-noise task. Research Design: Participants were fitted with study worn commercially available behind-the-ear hearing aids. Listening effort on a sentence recognition in noise task was measured using an objective auditory–visual dual-task paradigm. The primary task required participants to repeat sentences presented in quiet and in a four-talker babble. The secondary task was a digital visual pursuit rotor-tracking test, for which participants were instructed to use a computer mouse to track a moving target around an ellipse that was displayed on a computer screen. Each of the two tasks was presented separately and concurrently at a fixed overall speech recognition performance level of 50% correct with and without the directional microphone and/or the NR algorithm activated in the hearing aids. In addition, participants reported how effortful it was to listen to the sentences in quiet and in background noise in the different hearing aid listening conditions. Study Sample: Fifteen older listeners with mild sloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. Results: Listening effort in background noise was significantly reduced with the directional microphones activated in the hearing aids. However, there was no significant change in listening effort with the hearing aid NR algorithm compared to no noise processing. Correlation analysis between objective and self-reported ratings of listening effort showed no significant relation. Conclusions: Directional microphone processing effectively reduced the cognitive load of listening to speech in background noise. This is significant because it is likely that listeners with hearing impairment will frequently encounter noisy speech in their everyday communications.

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.

Evaluation of a Transient Noise Reduction Strategy for Hearing Aids

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 606-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
HaiHong Liu ◽  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Demin Han ◽  
Luo Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
T Test ◽  
Reduction Strategy ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Speech Clarity

Background: Transient noise can be disruptive for people wearing hearing aids. Ideally, the transient noise should be detected and controlled by the signal processor without disrupting speech and other intended input signals. A technology for detecting and controlling transient noises in hearing aids was evaluated in this study. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a transient noise reduction strategy on various transient noises and to determine whether the strategy has a negative impact on sound quality of intended speech inputs. Research Design: This was a quasi-experimental study. The study involved 24 hearing aid users. Each participant was asked to rate the parameters of speech clarity, transient noise loudness, and overall impression for speech stimuli under the algorithm-on and algorithm-off conditions. During the evaluation, three types of stimuli were used: transient noises, speech, and background noises. The transient noises included “knife on a ceramic board,” “mug on a tabletop,” “office door slamming,” “car door slamming,” and “pen tapping on countertop.” The speech sentences used for the test were presented by a male speaker in Mandarin. The background noises included “party noise” and “traffic noise.” All of these sounds were combined into five listening situations: (1) speech only, (2) transient noise only, (3) speech and transient noise, (4) background noise and transient noise, and (5) speech and background noise and transient noise. Results: There was no significant difference on the ratings of speech clarity between the algorithm-on and algorithm-off (t-test, p = 0.103). Further analysis revealed that speech clarity was significant better at 70 dB SLP than 55 dB SPL (p < 0.001). For transient noise loudness: under the algorithm-off condition, the percentages of subjects rating the transient noise to be somewhat soft, appropriate, somewhat loud, and too loud were 0.2, 47.1, 29.6, and 23.1%, respectively. The corresponding percentages under the algorithm-on were 3.0, 72.6, 22.9, and 1.4%, respectively. A significant difference on the ratings of the transient noise loudness was found between the algorithm-on and algorithm-off (t-test, p < 0.001). For overall impression for speech stimuli: under the algorithm-off condition, the percentage of subjects rating the algorithm to be not helpful at all, somewhat helpful, helpful, and very helpful for speech stimuli were 36.5, 20.8, 33.9, and 8.9%, respectively. Under the algorithm-on condition, the corresponding percentages were 35.0, 19.3, 30.7, and 15.0%, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed there was a significant difference on the ratings of overall impression on speech stimuli. The ratings under the algorithm-on condition were significantly more helpful for speech understanding than the ratings under algorithm-off (t-test, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The transient noise reduction strategy appropriately controlled the loudness for most of the transient noises and did not affect the sound quality, which could be beneficial to hearing aid wearers.

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 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.

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.

scholarly journals Interactions Between Digital Noise Reduction and Reverberation: Acoustic and Behavioral Effects

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (01) ◽  
pp. 017-029
Author(s):  
Paul Reinhart ◽  
Pavel Zahorik ◽  
Pamela Souza
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Spectral Subtraction ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Reverberant Environments ◽  
Speech Naturalness

AbstractDigital noise reduction (DNR) processing is used in hearing aids to enhance perception in noise by classifying and suppressing the noise acoustics. However, the efficacy of DNR processing is not known under reverberant conditions where the speech-in-noise acoustics are further degraded by reverberation.The purpose of this study was to investigate acoustic and perceptual effects of DNR processing across a range of reverberant conditions for individuals with hearing impairment.This study used an experimental design to investigate the effects of varying reverberation on speech-in-noise processed with DNR.Twenty-six listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing impairment participated in the study.Speech stimuli were combined with unmodulated broadband noise at several signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A range of reverberant conditions with realistic parameters were simulated, as well as an anechoic control condition without reverberation. Reverberant speech-in-noise signals were processed using a spectral subtraction DNR simulation. Signals were acoustically analyzed using a phase inversion technique to quantify improvement in SNR as a result of DNR processing. Sentence intelligibility and subjective ratings of listening effort, speech naturalness, and background noise comfort were examined with and without DNR processing across the conditions.Improvement in SNR was greatest in the anechoic control condition and decreased as the ratio of direct to reverberant energy decreased. There was no significant effect of DNR processing on speech intelligibility in the anechoic control condition, but there was a significant decrease in speech intelligibility with DNR processing in all of the reverberant conditions. Subjectively, listeners reported greater listening effort and lower speech naturalness with DNR processing in some of the reverberant conditions. Listeners reported higher background noise comfort with DNR processing only in the anechoic control condition.Results suggest that reverberation affects DNR processing using a spectral subtraction algorithm in such a way that decreases the ability of DNR to reduce noise without distorting the speech acoustics. Overall, DNR processing may be most beneficial in environments with little reverberation and that the use of DNR processing in highly reverberant environments may actually produce adverse perceptual effects. Further research is warranted using commercial hearing aids in realistic reverberant environments.

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.

Fitting Noise Management Signal Processing Applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Verification Protocols

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (03) ◽  
pp. 237-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Scollie ◽  
Charla Levy ◽  
Nazanin Pourmand ◽  
Parvaneh Abbasalipour ◽  
Marlene Bagatto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Verification Systems ◽  
Clinical Verification ◽  
Noise Management

Background: Although guidelines for fitting hearing aids for children are well developed and have strong basis in evidence, specific protocols for fitting and verifying some technologies are not always available. One such technology is noise management in children’s hearing aids. Children are frequently in high-level and/or noisy environments, and many options for noise management exist in modern hearing aids. Verification protocols are needed to define specific test signals and levels for use in clinical practice. Purpose: This work aims to (1) describe the variation in different brands of noise reduction processors in hearing aids and the verification of these processors and (2) determine whether these differences are perceived by 13 children who have hearing loss. Finally, we aimed to develop a verification protocol for use in pediatric clinical practice. Study Sample: A set of hearing aids was tested using both clinically available test systems and a reference system, so that the impacts of noise reduction signal processing in hearing aids could be characterized for speech in a variety of background noises. A second set of hearing aids was tested across a range of audiograms and across two clinical verification systems to characterize the variance in clinical verification measurements. Finally, a set of hearing aid recordings that varied by type of noise reduction was rated for sound quality by children with hearing loss. Results: Significant variation across makes and models of hearing aids was observed in both the speed of noise reduction activation and the magnitude of noise reduction. Reference measures indicate that noise-only testing may overestimate noise reduction magnitude compared to speech-in-noise testing. Variation across clinical test signals was also observed, indicating that some test signals may be more successful than others for characterization of hearing aid noise reduction. Children provided different sound quality ratings across hearing aids, and for one hearing aid rated the sound quality as higher with the noise reduction system activated. Conclusions: Implications for clinical verification systems may be that greater standardization and the use of speech-in-noise test signals may improve the quality and consistency of noise reduction verification cross clinics. A suggested clinical protocol for verification of noise management in children’s hearing aids is suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document