Loudness as a Cue for Acceptable Noise Levels

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 605-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Martin F. McKinney ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Matched Data ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Different Levels

Background/Purpose: The acceptable noise level (ANL) test is the only test that is known to predict success with hearing aids with a high degree of accuracy. A person’s ANL is the maximal amount of background noise that he or she is “willing to put up with” while listening to running speech. It is defined as the speech level minus the noise level, in decibels (dB). People who are willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas people who are not willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. If it were known what cues that listeners are using to decide how much background noise they are willing to tolerate, then it might be possible to create technology that reduces these cues and improves listeners’ chances of success with hearing aids. As a first step toward this goal, this study investigated whether listeners are using loudness as a cue to determine their ANLs. Research Design and Study Sample: Twenty-one individuals with normal hearing and 21 individuals with sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. In each group of 21 participants, 7 had a low ANL (<7 dB), 7 had a mid ANL (7–13 dB), and 7 had a high ANL (>13 dB). Data Collection/Analysis: Participants performed a modified version of the ANL in which the speech was fixed at four different levels (50, 63, 75 and 88 dBA), and participants adjusted the background noise (multitalker babble) to the maximal level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. These results were compared with participants’ equal-loudness contours for the multitalker babble in the presence of speech. Equal-loudness contours were measured by having the participants perform a loudness-matching task in which they matched the level of the background noise (multitalker babble), played concurrently with speech, to a reference condition (also multitalker babble). During the test condition, the speech played at 50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA. All testing was performed in a sound booth with the speech and the noise presented from a loudspeaker at a 0° azimuth, 3 feet in front of the participant. Each condition was presented multiple times, and the results were averaged. Presentation order was randomized. Participants were tested unaided. Results: Participants' ANLs were compared with their equal-loudness contours for the background noise. ANLs that ran parallel to the equal-loudness contours were considered consistent with a loudness-based listening strategy. This pattern was observed for only two participants – both hearing-impaired. Conclusions: The majority of listeners showed no consistent trend between their ANLs and their loudness-matched data, suggesting that they are using cues other than loudness to determine their ANLs. ANLs were consistent with loudness-matched data for a small subset of listeners, suggesting that they may be using loudness as a cue for determining their ANLs.

Comparison of Speech Perception in Background Noise With Acceptance of Background Noise in Aided and Unaided Conditions

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1001-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level

Background noise is a significant factor influencing hearing-aid satisfaction and is a major reason for rejection of hearing aids. Attempts have been made by previous researchers to relate the use of hearing aids to speech perception in noise (SPIN), with an expectation of improved speech perception followed by an increased acceptance of hearing aids. Unfortunately, SPIN was not related to hearing-aid use or satisfaction. A new measure of listener reaction to background noise has been proposed. The acceptable noise level (ANL), expressed in decibels, is defined as a difference between the most comfortable listening level for speech and the highest background noise level that is acceptable when listening to and following a story. The ANL measure assumes that speech understanding in noise may not be as important as is the willingness to listen in the presence of noise. It has been established that people who accept background noise have smaller ANLs and tend to be "good" users of hearing aids. Conversely, people who cannot accept background noise have larger ANLs and may only use hearing aids occasionally or reject them altogether. Because this is a new measure, it was important to determine the reliability of the ANL over time with and without hearing aids, to determine the effect of acclimatization to hearing aids, and to compare the ANL to well-established measures such as speech perception scores collected with the SPIN test. Results from 50 listeners indicate that for both good and occasional hearing aid users, the ANL is comparable in reliability to the SPIN test and that both measures do not change with acclimatization. The ANLs and SPIN scores are unrelated. Although the SPIN scores improve with amplification, the ANLs are unaffected by amplification, suggesting that the ANL is inherent to an individual and can be established prior to hearing aid fitting as a possible predictor of hearing-aid use. KEY WORDS : background noise, hearing aids, acceptable noise level, speech perception in noise

Acceptable Noise Level as a Predictor of Hearing Aid Use

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (09) ◽  
pp. 626-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield ◽  
Robert A. Muenchen
Keyword(s):  
Time Use ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Part Time

Acceptable noise level (ANL) measures a listener's reaction to background noise while listening to speech. Relations among hearing aid use and ANL, speech in noise (SPIN) scores, and listener characteristics (age, gender, pure-tone average) were investigated in 191 listeners with hearing impairment. Listeners were assigned to one of three groups based on patterns of hearing aid use: full-time use (whenever hearing aids are needed), part-time use (occasional use), or nonuse. Results showed that SPIN scores and listener characteristics were not related to ANL or hearing aid use. However, ANLs were related to hearing aid use. Specifically, full-time hearing aid users accepted more background noise than part-time users or nonusers, yet part-time users and nonusers could not be differentiated. Thus, a prediction of hearing aid use was examined by comparing part-time users and nonusers (unsuccessful hearing aid users) with full-time users (successful hearing aid users). Regression analysis determined that unaided ANLs could predict a listener's success of hearing aids with 85% accuracy.

Intertester Reliability of the Acceptable Noise Level

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (07) ◽  
pp. 534-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Gordon-Hickey ◽  
Elizabeth Adams ◽  
Robert Moore ◽  
Ashley Gaal ◽  
Katie Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Instruction Set ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) serves to accurately predict the listener's likelihood of success with amplification. It has been proposed as a pre–hearing aid fitting protocol for hearing aid selection and counseling purposes. The ANL is a subjective measure of the listener's ability to accept background noise. Measurement of ANL relies on the tester and listener to follow the instructions set forth. To date, no research has explored the reliability of ANL as measured across clinicians or testers. Purpose: To examine the intertester reliability of ANL. Research Design: A descriptive quasi-experimental reliability study was completed. ANL was measured for one group of listeners by three testers. Study Sample: Three participants served as testers. Each tester was familiar with basic audiometry. Twenty-five young adults with normal hearing served as listeners. Data Collection/Analysis: Each tester was stationed in a laboratory with the needed equipment. Listeners were instructed to report to these laboratories in a random order provided by the experimenters. The testers assessed most comfortable listening level (MCL) and background noise level (BNL) for all 25 listeners. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were significant and revealed that MCL, BNL, and ANLs are reliable across testers. Additionally, one-way ANOVAs for MCL, BNL, and ANL were not significant. These findings indicate that MCL, BNL, and ANL do not differ significantly when measured by different testers. Conclusions: If the ANL instruction set is accurately followed, ANL can be reliably measured across testers, laboratories, and clinics. Intertester reliability of ANL allows for comparison across ANLs measured by different individuals. Findings of the present study indicate that tester reliability can be ruled out as a factor contributing to the disparity of mean ANLs reported in the literature.

scholarly journals The Effect of Digital Noise Reduction on Annoyance and Speech Perception in Low and High Acceptable Noise Level Groups

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. e433-e439
Author(s):  
Hemanth Narayan Shetty ◽  
Navya Bilijagalemole Nanjundaswamy
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Strong Negative Correlation ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Introduction Studies have reported that although speech perception in noise was unaltered with and without digital noise reduction (DNR), the annoyance toward noise measured by acceptable noise level (ANL) was significantly improved by DNR with the range between 2.5 and 4.5 dB. It is unclear whether a similar improvement would be observed in those individuals who have an ANL ≥ 14 dB (predictive of poor hearing aid user) often rejects their aid because of annoyance toward noise. Objectives (a) To determine the effect of activation of DNR on the improvement in the aided ANL from low- and high-ANL groups; and (b) to predict the change in ANL when DNR was activated. Method Ten bilateral mild to severe sloping sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) participants in each of the low- and high-ANL groups were involved. These participants were bilaterally fitted with receiver in canal (RIC) hearing aids (Oticon, Smorum, Egedal, Denmark) with a DNR processor. Both SNR-50% (Signal to noise ratio (in dB) required to achieve 50 % speech recognition) and ANL were assessed in DNR-on and DNR-off listening conditions. Results Digital noise reduction has no effect on SNR-50 in each group. The annoyance level was significantly reduced in the DNR-on than DNR-off condition in the low-ANL group. In the high-ANL group, a strong negative correlation was observed between the ANL in DNR off and a change in ANL after DNR was employed in the hearing aid (benefit). The benefit of DNR on annoyance can be effectively predicted by baseline-aided ANL by linear regression. Conclusion Digital noise reduction reduced the annoyance level in the high-ANL group, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline-aided ANL value.

Acceptable Noise Level as a Measure of Directional Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (04) ◽  
pp. 228-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield ◽  
James W. Thelin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Difference ◽  
User Friendly ◽  
Binaural Hearing Aids ◽  
Directional Benefit

An acceptable noise level (ANL) procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit was compared with masked speech reception threshold (SRT) and front-to-back ratio (FBR) procedures. ANL is the difference between the most comfortable listening level and the maximum accepted background noise level while listening to speech. Forty adult subjects wearing their own binaural hearing aids were evaluated in omnidirectional and directional modes. The subjects were fitted with a variety of hearing aids by clinical audiologists, independent of the study. For each procedure, speech and noise were presented through loudspeakers located at 0° and 180° azimuth, respectively. Mean ANL (3.5 dB), SRT (3.7 dB), and FBR (2.9 dB) directional benefits were not significantly different. The ANL and masked SRT benefits were significantly correlated. The ANL appears to be a quick, clinician/user friendly procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit.

scholarly journals Assessment of acceptable noise level in unilateral hearing aid users

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumars Akaberi ◽  
Hamid Jalilvand ◽  
Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi ◽  
Ahmadreza Nazeri1 ◽  
Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Deprivation ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
The Mean

Background and Aim: It is well known that hearing aid fitting is an effective approach to improve the communication ability of hearingimpaired people. In the past, most of the hearing aids were fitted unilaterally rather than bilaterally. Whereas the unilateral hearing aid fitting improves verbal communication partially, it causes late-onset auditory deprivation. The main aim of this study is to investigate the ANL for each ear among the users with unilateral hearing aid experience. Methods: A total of 23 participants were recruited (14 females, 9 males). The mean age was 74.65 years (ranged from 41 to 83). All subjects had bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. The most comfortable level (MCL), Background Noise Level (BNL), and acceptable noise level (ANL) were measured for ear with amplification experience and ear without experience. Results: MCL, BNL and ANL in the aided ear was 82.22, 73.48 and 8.74 respectively, in addition in the unaided ear the results for MCL, BNL and ANL was 81.78, 72.13 and 9.65 respectively. Comparing the mean values of MCL, BNL and ANL between two ears showed no significant difference. Conclusion: There was not any difference for BNL and ANL measures Keywords: Bilateral hearing loss; acceptable noise level; late onset auditory deprivation; Hearing aid 

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.

Hearing Aid Design and Evaluation for a Patient with a Severe Discrimination Loss for Speech

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Miller ◽  
Arthur F. Niemoeller
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Accurate Estimate ◽  
Single Patient

Results of intelligibility tests on a single patient with a severe discrimination loss for speech are reported. The patient was tested with four different hearing aids and with no aid, and the effects of opportunity for lipreading, background noise, and reverberation were evaluated. The tests appear to allow an accurate estimate of the amount of help to be expected in various situations and show that an aid with good fidelity is clearly superior to the others tested. The destructive effects of background noise and reverberation are demonstrated separately and in combination.

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.

Evaluation of an Articulation-Index Based Model for Predicting the Effects of Adaptive Frequency Response Hearing Aids

1990 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 676-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Dianne J. Van Tasell
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Frequency Response ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Articulation Index ◽  
Intelligibility Ratings ◽  
High Pass

The Articulation Index (AI) was used to evaluate an “adaptive frequency response” (AFR) hearing aid with amplification characteristics that automatically change to become more high-pass with increasing levels of background noise. Speech intelligibility ratings of connected discourse by normal-hearing subjects were predicted well by an empirically derived AI transfer function. That transfer function was used to predict aided speech intelligibility ratings by 12 hearing-impaired subjects wearing a master hearing aid with the Argosy Manhattan Circuit enabled (AFR-on) or disabled (AFR-off). For all subjects, the AI predicted no improvements in speech intelligibility for the AFR-on versus AFR-off condition, and no significant improvements in rated intelligibility were observed. The ability of the AI to predict aided speech intelligibility varied across subjects. However, ratings from every hearing-impaired subject were related monotonically to AI. Therefore, AI calculations may be used to predict relative—but not absolute—levels of speech intelligibility produced under different amplification conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document