Investigation of Extended Bandwidth Hearing Aid Amplification on Speech Intelligibility and Sound Quality in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (03) ◽  
pp. 243-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angeline Seeto ◽  
Grant D. Searchfield
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Significant Benefit ◽  
Band Frequency ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

AbstractAdvances in digital signal processing have made it possible to provide a wide-band frequency response with smooth, precise spectral shaping. Several manufacturers have introduced hearing aids that are claimed to provide gain for frequencies up to 10–12 kHz. However, there is currently limited evidence and very few independent studies evaluating the performance of the extended bandwidth hearing aids that have recently become available.This study investigated an extended bandwidth hearing aid using measures of speech intelligibility and sound quality to find out whether there was a significant benefit of extended bandwidth amplification over standard amplification.Repeated measures study designed to examine the efficacy of extended bandwidth amplification compared to standard bandwidth amplification.Sixteen adult participants with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss.Participants were bilaterally fit with a pair of Widex Mind 440 behind-the-ear hearing aids programmed with a standard bandwidth fitting and an extended bandwidth fitting; the latter provided gain up to 10 kHz.For each fitting, and an unaided condition, participants completed two speech measures of aided benefit, the Quick Speech-in-Noise test (QuickSIN™) and the Phonak Phoneme Perception Test (PPT; high-frequency perception in quiet), and a measure of sound quality rating.There were no significant differences found between unaided and aided conditions for QuickSIN™ scores. For the PPT, there were statistically significantly lower (improved) detection thresholds at high frequencies (6 and 9 kHz) with the extended bandwidth fitting. Although not statistically significant, participants were able to distinguish between 6 and 9 kHz 50% better with extended bandwidth. No significant difference was found in ability to recognize phonemes in quiet between the unaided and aided conditions when phonemes only contained frequency content <6 kHz. However significant benefit was found with the extended bandwidth fitting for recognition of 9-kHz phonemes. No significant difference in sound quality preference was found between the standard bandwidth and extended bandwidth fittings.This study demonstrated that a pair of currently available extended bandwidth hearing aids was technically capable of delivering high-frequency amplification that was both audible and useable to listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. This amplification was of acceptable sound quality. Further research, particularly field trials, is required to ascertain the real-world benefit of high-frequency amplification.

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

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.

An Initial-Fit Comparison of Two Generic Hearing Aid Prescriptive Methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to Individuals Having Mild to Moderately Severe High-Frequency Hearing Loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 138-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Earl E. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Paired Comparison ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Individual Subject ◽  
Model Calculations ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss

Background: Johnson and Dillon (2011) provided a model-based comparison of current generic hearing aid prescriptive methods for adults with hearing loss based on the attributes of speech intelligibility, loudness, and bandwidth. Purpose: This study compared the National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 2 (NAL-NL2) and Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2—High-Frequency (CAM2) prescriptive methods using adult participants with less high-frequency hearing loss than Johnson and Dillon (2011). Of study interest was quantification of prescribed audibility, speech intelligibility, and loudness. The preferences of participants for either NAL-NL2 or CAM2 and preferred deviations from prescribed settings are also reported. Research Design: Using a single-blind, counter-balanced, randomized design, preference judgments for the prescriptive methods with regard to sound quality of speech and music stimuli were obtained. Preferred gain adjustments from the prescription within the 4–10 kHz frequency range were also obtained from each participant. Speech intelligibility and loudness model calculations were completed on the prescribed and adjusted amplification. Study Sample: Fourteen male Veterans, whose average age was 65 yr and whose hearing sensitivity averaged normal to borderline normal through 1000 Hz sloping to a moderately severe sensorineural loss, served as participants. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a brief listening time (˜10 min), typical of an initial fitting visit, the participants made paired comparison of sound quality between the NAL-NL2 and CAM2 prescriptive settings. Participants were also asked to modify each prescription in the range of 4–10 kHz using an overall gain control and make subsequent comparisons of sound quality preference between prescriptive and adjusted settings. Participant preferences were examined with respect to quantitative analysis of loudness modeling, speech intelligibility modeling, and measured high-frequency bandwidth audibility. Results: Consistent with the lack of difference in predicted speech intelligibility between the two prescriptions, sound quality preferences on the basis of clarity were split across participants while some participants did not have a discernable preference. Considering sound quality judgments of pleasantness, the majority of participants preferred the sound quality of the NAL-NL2 (8 of 14) prescription instead of the CAM2 prescription (2 of 14). Four of the 14 participants showed no preference on the basis of pleasantness for either prescription. Individual subject preferences were supported by loudness modeling that indicated NAL-NL2 was the softer of the two prescriptions and CAM2 was the louder. CAM2 did provide more audibility to the higher frequencies (5–8 kHz) than NAL-NL2. Participants turned the 4–10 kHz gain recommendation of CAM2 lower, on average, by a significant amount of 4 dB when making adjustments while no significant adjustment was made to the initial NAL-NL2 recommendation. Conclusions: NAL-NL2 prescribed gains were more often preferred at the initial fitting by the majority of participating veterans. For those patients with preference for a louder fitting than NAL-NL2, CAM2 is a good alternative. When the participant adjustment from the prescription between 4 and 10 kHz exceeded 4 dB from either NAL-NL2 (2 of 14) or CAM2 (11 of 14), the participants demonstrated a later preference for that adjustment 69% of the time. These findings are viewed as limited evidence that some individuals may have a preference for high-frequency gain that differs from the starting prescription.

scholarly journals The Effects of Manufacturer’s Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 346-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian Kar Quar ◽  
Cila Umat ◽  
Yong Yee Chew
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Input ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
High Frequency Region ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe use of probe microphone measures in hearing aid verification is often neglected or not fully used by practitioners. Some practitioners rely on simulated gain and output provided by manufacturer's fitting software to verify hearing aids.This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manufacturer’s prefit procedure in matching the prescribed real-ear targets. It also aims to study its correlated impact on the predicted speech perception in children with severe and profound hearing loss.This cross-sectional experiment was carried out by measuring the output of hearing aids based on prefit versus real-ear at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The predicted speech perception for different hearing aid fittings was determined based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII).Sixteen children (28 ears) aged between 4 and 7 yr, with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss took part in the study.Two different types of hearing aids (Phonak and Unitron) were programmed based on their respective manufacturers’ Desired Sensation Levels (DSL) v5 Child procedure. The hearing aids were then verified using coupler-based measurements and individual real-ear-to-coupler differences. The prefit outputs were compared with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The hearing aids were then adjusted to closely match the prescribed output. The SIIs were calculated for the fittings before and after adjustment.Sixty four percent of fittings that were based on the prefit procedure achieved the optimal fit-to-targets, with less than 5-dB RMS deviations from the DSL v5 Child targets. After adjusting the hearing aids to attempt to meet the DSL v5 Child targets, 75% of the ears tested achieved the optimal fit-to-targets. On average, hearing aid outputs generated by the manufacturer’s prefit procedure had good and reasonable agreement with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low- and mid-frequencies. Nonetheless, at 4000 Hz, the hearing aid output mostly fell below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs. This was still the case even after the hearing aid was adjusted to attempt to match with the targets. At low input level, some prefit outputs were found to be higher than the prescribed outputs. The deviations of prefit outputs from the prescribed outputs were dependent on the type of hearing aid and input levels. There was no significant difference between the SII calculated for fittings based on the prefit and adjusted fit.Prefit procedure tends to produce outputs that were below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs, with the largest mean difference at 4000 Hz. Even though the hearing aid gains were adjusted to attempt to match with the targets, the outputs were still below the targets. The limitations of hearing aids to match the DSL v5 Child targets at high-frequency region have resulted in no improvement in the children’s predicted speech perception.

Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in Hearing Aids Fit to Children with Severe or Profound Hearing Loss: Goodness of Fit-to-Targets, Impacts on Predicted Loudness and Speech Intelligibility

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (03) ◽  
pp. 260-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Y.C. Ching ◽  
Tian Kar Quar ◽  
Earl E. Johnson ◽  
Philip Newall ◽  
Mridula Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Input ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Input Level

Background: An important goal of providing amplification to children with hearing loss is to ensure that hearing aids are adjusted to match targets of prescriptive procedures as closely as possible. The Desired Sensation Level (DSL) v5 and the National Acoustic Laboratories’ prescription for nonlinear hearing aids, version 1 (NAL-NL1) procedures are widely used in fitting hearing aids to children. Little is known about hearing aid fitting outcomes for children with severe or profound hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness. Research Design: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old. Data Collection and Analysis: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures. Results: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1. Conclusions: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.

scholarly journals Perceived Sound Quality Dimensions Influencing Frequency-Gain Shaping Preferences for Hearing Aid-Amplified Speech and Music

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 233121652198990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Vaisberg ◽  
Steve Beaulac ◽  
Danielle Glista ◽  
Ewan A. Macpherson ◽  
Susan D. Scollie
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Classical Music ◽  
Paired Comparison ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Pop Music ◽  
Frequency Bands

Hearing aids are typically fitted using speech-based prescriptive formulae to make speech more intelligible. Individual preferences may vary from these prescriptions and may also vary with signal type. It is important to consider what motivates listener preferences and how those preferences can inform hearing aid processing so that assistive listening devices can best be tailored for hearing aid users. Therefore, this study explored preferred frequency-gain shaping relative to prescribed gain for speech and music samples. Preferred gain was determined for 22 listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe hearing loss relative to individually prescribed amplification while listening to samples of male speech, female speech, pop music, and classical music across low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands. Samples were amplified using a fast-acting compression hearing aid simulator. Preferences were determined using an adaptive paired comparison procedure. Listeners then rated speech and music samples processed using prescribed and preferred shaping across different sound quality descriptors. On average, low-frequency gain was significantly increased relative to the prescription for all stimuli and most substantially for pop and classical music. High-frequency gain was decreased significantly for pop music and male speech. Gain adjustments, particularly in the mid- and high-frequency bands, varied considerably between listeners. Music preferences were driven by changes in perceived fullness and sharpness, whereas speech preferences were driven by changes in perceived intelligibility and loudness. The results generally support the use of prescribed amplification to optimize speech intelligibility and alternative amplification for music listening for most listeners.

Comparison of In-the-Ear and Over-the-Ear Hearing Aid Fittings

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Risberg ◽  
Robyn M. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
The Relationship

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.

Modified Earpieces and CROS for High Frequency Hearing Losses

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dodds ◽  
Earl Harford
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Intensity Level ◽  
Test Results ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Increased Sensitivity ◽  
Difficult Cases

Persons with a high frequency hearing loss are difficult cases for whom to find suitable amplification. We have experienced some success with this problem in our Hearing Clinics using a specially designed earmold with a hearing aid. Thirty-five cases with high frequency hearing losses were selected from our clinical files for analysis of test results using standard, vented, and open earpieces. A statistical analysis of test results revealed that PB scores in sound field, using an average conversational intensity level (70 dB SPL), were enhanced when utilizing any one of the three earmolds. This result was due undoubtedly to increased sensitivity provided by the hearing aid. Only the open earmold used with a CROS hearing aid resulted in a significant improvement in discrimination when compared with the group’s unaided PB score under earphones or when comparing inter-earmold scores. These findings suggest that the inclusion of the open earmold with a CROS aid in the audiologist’s armamentarium should increase his flexibility in selecting hearing aids for persons with a high frequency hearing loss.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document