scholarly journals Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Measure Hearing Aid Benefit

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (08) ◽  
pp. 698-707
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Eric Seper ◽  
Chi-Chuen Lau ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Tolerance ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Test Conditions

AbstractThe benefits offered by noise reduction (NR) features on a hearing aid had been studied traditionally using test conditions that set the hearing aids into a stable state of performance. While adequate, this approach does not allow the differentiation of two NR algorithms that differ in their timing characteristics (i.e., activation and stabilization time).The current study investigated a new method of measuring noise tolerance (Tracking of Noise Tolerance [TNT]) as a means to differentiate hearing aid technologies. The study determined the within-session and between-session reliability of the procedure. The benefits provided by various hearing aid conditions (aided, two NR algorithms, and a directional microphone algorithm) were measured using this procedure. Performance on normal-hearing listeners was also measured for referencing.A single-blinded, repeated-measures design was used.Thirteen experienced hearing aid wearers with a bilaterally symmetrical (≤10 dB) mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study. In addition, seven normal-hearing listeners were tested in the unaided condition.Participants tracked the noise level that met the criterion of tolerable noise level (TNL) in the presence of an 85 dB SPL continuous discourse passage. The test conditions included an unaided condition and an aided condition with combinations of NR and microphone modes within the UNIQUE hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR; directional microphone, no NR; and directional microphone, NR) and the DREAM hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR). Each tracking trial lasted 2 min for each hearing aid condition. Normal-hearing listeners tracked in the unaided condition only. Nine of the 13 hearing-impaired listeners returned after 3 mo for retesting in the unaided and aided conditions with the UNIQUE hearing aid. The individual TNL was estimated for each participant for all test conditions. The TNT index was calculated as the difference between 85 dB SPL and the TNL.The TNT index varied from 2.2 dB in the omnidirectional microphone, no NR condition to −4.4 dB in the directional microphone, NR on condition. Normal-hearing listeners reported a TNT index of −5.7 dB using this procedure. The averaged improvement in TNT offered by the NR algorithm on the UNIQUE varied from 2.1 dB when used with a directional microphone to 3.0 dB when used with the omnidirectional microphone. The time course of the NR algorithm was different between the UNIQUE and the DREAM hearing aids, with the UNIQUE reaching a stable TNL sooner than the DREAM. The averaged improvement in TNT index from the UNIQUE directional microphone was 3.6 dB when NR was activated and 4.4 dB when NR was deactivated. Together, directional microphone and NR resulted in a total TNT improvement of 6.5 dB. The test–retest reliability of the procedure was high, with an intrasession 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.2 dB and an intersession 95% CI of 4.2 dB.The effect of the NR and directional microphone algorithms was measured to be 2–3 and 3.6–4.4 dB, respectively, using the TNT procedure. Because of its tracking property and reliability, this procedure may hold promise in differentiating among some hearing aid features that also differ in their time course of action.

scholarly journals The Effect of Hearing Aid Technologies on Listening in an Automobile

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (06) ◽  
pp. 474-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Rachel W. Stanziola
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Road Noise ◽  
Processing Scheme ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones

Background: Communication while traveling in an automobile often is very difficult for hearing aid users. This is because the automobile/road noise level is usually high, and listeners/drivers often do not have access to visual cues. Since the talker of interest usually is not located in front of the listener/driver, conventional directional processing that places the directivity beam toward the listener's front may not be helpful and, in fact, could have a negative impact on speech recognition (when compared to omnidirectional processing). Recently, technologies have become available in commercial hearing aids that are designed to improve speech recognition and/or listening effort in noisy conditions where talkers are located behind or beside the listener. These technologies include (1) a directional microphone system that uses a backward-facing directivity pattern (Back-DIR processing), (2) a technology that transmits audio signals from the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to the ear with the poorer SNR (Side-Transmission processing), and (3) a signal processing scheme that suppresses the noise at the ear with the poorer SNR (Side-Suppression processing). Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of (1) conventional directional microphones and (2) newer signal processing schemes (Back-DIR, Side-Transmission, and Side-Suppression) on listener's speech recognition performance and preference for communication in a traveling automobile. Research Design: A single-blinded, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-five adults with bilateral symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss aged 44 through 84 yr participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The automobile/road noise and sentences of the Connected Speech Test (CST) were recorded through hearing aids in a standard van moving at a speed of 70 mph on a paved highway. The hearing aids were programmed to omnidirectional microphone, conventional adaptive directional microphone, and the three newer schemes. CST sentences were presented from the side and back of the hearing aids, which were placed on the ears of a manikin. The recorded stimuli were presented to listeners via earphones in a sound-treated booth to assess speech recognition performance and preference with each programmed condition. Results: Compared to omnidirectional microphones, conventional adaptive directional processing had a detrimental effect on speech recognition when speech was presented from the back or side of the listener. Back-DIR and Side-Transmission processing improved speech recognition performance (relative to both omnidirectional and adaptive directional processing) when speech was from the back and side, respectively. The performance with Side-Suppression processing was better than with adaptive directional processing when speech was from the side. The participants' preferences for a given processing scheme were generally consistent with speech recognition results. Conclusions: The finding that performance with adaptive directional processing was poorer than with omnidirectional microphones demonstrates the importance of selecting the correct microphone technology for different listening situations. The results also suggest the feasibility of using hearing aid technologies to provide a better listening experience for hearing aid users in automobiles.

scholarly journals Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Predict Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Loud Noisy Environments

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 302-314
Author(s):  
Eric Seper ◽  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Christopher Slugocki
Keyword(s):  
Noise Level ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Noise Tolerance ◽  
Noisy Environments ◽  
Continuous Speech ◽  
Noise Estimate ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Babble Noise ◽  
Stable Noise

AbstractA method that tracked tolerable noise level (TNL) over time while maintaining subjective speech intelligibility was reported previously. Although this method was reliable and efficacious as a research tool, its clinical efficacy and predictive ability of real-life hearing aid satisfaction were not measured.The study evaluated an adaptive method to estimate TNL using slope and variance of tracked noise level as criteria in a clinical setting. The relationship between TNL and subjective hearing aid satisfaction in noisy environments was also investigated.A single-blinded, repeated-measures design.Seventeen experienced hearing aid wearers with bilateral mild-to-moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss.Participants listened to 82-dB SPL continuous speech and tracked the background noise level that they could “put up with” while subjectively understanding >90% of the speech material. Two trials with each babble noise and continuous speech-shaped noise were measured in a single session. All four trials were completed aided using the participants’ own hearing aids. The stimuli were presented in the sound field with speech from 0° and noise from the 180° azimuth. The instantaneous tolerable noise level was measured using a custom program and scored in two ways; the averaged TNL (aTNL) over the 2-min trial and the estimated TNL (eTNL) as soon as the listeners reached a stable noise estimate. Correlation between TNL and proportion of satisfied noisy environments was examined using the MarkeTrak questionnaire.All listeners completed the tracking of noise tolerance procedure within 2 min with good reliability. Sixty-five percent of the listeners yielded a stable noise estimate after 59.9 sec of actual test time. The eTNL for all trials was 78.6 dB SPL (standard deviation [SD] = 4.4 dB). The aTNL for all trials was 78.0 dB SPL (SD = 3.3 dB) after 120 sec. The aTNL was 79.2 dB SPL (SD = 5.4 dB) for babble noise and 77.0 dB SPL (SD = 5.9 dB) for speech-shaped noise. High within-session test–retest reliability was evident. The 95% confidence interval was 1.5 dB for babble noise and 2.8 dB for continuous speech-shaped noise. No significant correlation was measured between overall hearing aid satisfaction and the aTNL (ρ = 0.20 for both noises); however, a significant relationship between aTNL and proportion of satisfied noisy situations was evident (ρ = 0.48 for babble noise and ρ = 0.55 for speech-shaped noise).The eTNL scoring method yielded similar results as the aTNL method although requiring only half the time for 65% of the listeners. This time efficiency, along with its reliability and the potential relationship between TNL and hearing aid satisfaction in noisy listening situations suggests that this procedure may be a good clinical tool to evaluate whether specific features on a hearing aid would improve noise tolerance and predict wearer satisfaction with the selected hearing aid in real-life loud noisy situations. A larger sample of hearing aid wearers is needed to further validate these potential uses.

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.

scholarly journals Integrated Bimodal Fitting for Unilateral CI Users with Residual Contralateral Hearing

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-206
Author(s):  
Gennaro Auletta ◽  
Annamaria Franzè ◽  
Carla Laria ◽  
Carmine Piccolo ◽  
Carmine Papa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Performance Difference ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Noisy Conditions ◽  
New Formula ◽  
Better Than

Background: The aim of this study was to compare, in users of bimodal cochlear implants, the performance obtained using their own hearing aids (adjusted with the standard NAL-NL1 fitting formula) with the performance using the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aid adjusted with both NAL-NL1 and a new bimodal system (Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB)) developed by Advanced Bionics and Phonak Corporations. Methods: Eleven bimodal users (Naìda CI Q70 + contralateral hearing aid) were enrolled in our study. The users’ own hearing aids were replaced with the Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power and fitted following the new formula. Speech intelligibility was assessed in quiet and noisy conditions, and comparisons were made with the results obtained with the users’ previous hearing aids and with the Naída Link hearing aids fitted with the NAL-NL1 generic prescription formula. Results: Using Phonak Naìda Link Ultra Power hearing aids with the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal fitting formula, performance was significantly better than that with the users’ own rehabilitation systems, especially in challenging hearing situations for all analyzed subjects. Conclusions: Speech intelligibility tests in quiet settings did not reveal a significant difference in performance between the new fitting formula and NAL-NL1 fittings (using the Naída Link hearing aids), whereas the performance difference between the two fittings was very significant in noisy test conditions.

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.

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

Left-Right and Front-Back Spatial Hearing with Multiple Directional Microphone Configurations in Modern Hearing Aids

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (09) ◽  
pp. 791-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyne Carette ◽  
Tim Van den Bogaert ◽  
Mark Laureyns ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Frequency Dependent ◽  
Binaural Cues ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Spectral Cues ◽  
Localization Performance ◽  
Asymmetric Configuration

Background: Several studies have demonstrated negative effects of directional microphone configurations on left-right and front-back (FB) sound localization. New processing schemes, such as frequency-dependent directionality and front focus with wireless ear-to-ear communication in recent, commercial hearing aids may preserve the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and may introduce useful spectral cues necessary for FB disambiguation. Purpose: In this study, two hearing aids with different processing schemes, which were both designed to preserve the ability to localize sounds in the horizontal plane (left-right and FB), were compared. Research Design: We compared horizontal (left-right and FB) sound localization performance of hearing aid users fitted with two types of behind-the-ear (BTE) devices. The first type of BTE device had four different programs that provided (1) no directionality, (2–3) symmetric frequency-dependent directionality, and (4) an asymmetric configuration. The second pair of BTE devices was evaluated in its omnidirectional setting. This setting automatically activates a soft forward-oriented directional scheme that mimics the pinna effect. Also, wireless communication between the hearing aids was present in this configuration (5). A broadband stimulus was used as a target signal. The directional hearing abilities of the listeners were also evaluated without hearing aids as a reference. Study Sample: A total of 12 listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss participated in this study. All were experienced hearing-aid users. As a reference, 11 listeners with normal hearing participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The participants were positioned in a 13-speaker array (left-right, –90°/+90°) or 7-speaker array (FB, 0–180°) and were asked to report the number of the loudspeaker located the closest to where the sound was perceived. The root mean square error was calculated for the left-right experiment, and the percentage of FB errors was used as a FB performance measure. Results were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the left-right localization task, no significant differences could be proven between the unaided condition and both partial directional schemes and the omnidirectional scheme. The soft forward-oriented system and the asymmetric system did show a detrimental effect compared with the unaided condition. On average, localization was worst when users used the asymmetric condition. Analysis of the results of the FB experiment showed good performance, similar to unaided, with both the partial directional systems and the asymmetric configuration. Significantly worse performance was found with the omnidirectional and the omnidirectional soft forward-oriented BTE systems compared with the other hearing-aid systems. Conclusions: Bilaterally fitted partial directional systems preserve (part of) the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and introduce, preserve, or enhance useful spectral cues that allow FB disambiguation. Omnidirectional systems, although good for left-right localization, do not provide the user with enough spectral information for an optimal FB localization performance.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document