scholarly journals High-Frequency Audibility: The Effects of Audiometric Configuration, Stimulus Type, and Device

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 128-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Kimlinger ◽  
Ryan McCreery ◽  
Dawna Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Average Maximum ◽  
Audible Frequency ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: For the last decade, the importance of providing amplification up to 9–10 kHz has been supported by multiple studies involving children and adults. The extent to which a listener with hearing loss can benefit from bandwidth expansion is dependent on the audibility of high-frequency cues. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) devised a standard method for measuring and reporting hearing aid bandwidth for quality-control purposes. However, ANSI bandwidth measurements were never intended to reflect the true frequency range that is audible for a speech stimulus for a person with hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the maximum audible frequency of conventional hearing aids using a speech signal as the input through the hearing aid microphone for different degrees of hearing loss, (2) examine how the maximum audible frequency changes when the input stimulus is presented through hearing assistance technology (HAT) systems with cross-coupling of manufacturers' transmitters and receivers, and (3) evaluate how the maximum audible frequency compares with the upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth measure. Research Design: Eight behind-the-ear hearing aids from five hearing aid manufacturers were selected based on a range of ANSI bandwidth upper frequency limits. Three audiometric configurations with varied degrees of high-frequency hearing loss were programmed into each hearing aid. Hearing aid responses were measured with the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS), broadband noise, and a short speech token (/asa/) as stimuli presented through a loudspeaker. HAT devices from three manufacturers were used to create five HAT scenarios. These instruments were coupled to the hearing aid programmed for the audiogram that provided the highest maximum audible frequency in the hearing aid analysis. The response from each HAT scenario was obtained using the same three stimuli as during the hearing aid analysis. Study Sample: All measurements were collected in an audiometric sound booth on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR). Data Collection and Analysis: A custom computer program was used to record responses from KEMAR. Maximum audible frequency was defined as the highest point where the Long-Term Average Speech Spectrum (LTASS) intersected the audiogram. Results: The average maximum audible frequency measured through KEMAR ranged from 3.5 kHz to beyond 8 kHz and varied significantly across devices, audiograms, and stimuli. The specified upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth was not predictive of the maximum audible frequency across conditions. For most HAT systems, the maximum audible frequency for the hearing aid plus HAT condition was equivalent to the hearing aid for the same measurement configuration. In some cases, however, the HAT system imposed a lower maximum audible frequency than the hearing aid–only condition. Conclusions: The maximum audible frequency of behind-the-ear hearing aids is dependent on the degree of hearing loss, amplification device, and stimulus input. Estimating the maximum audible frequency by estimating the frequency where the speech spectrum intersects the audiogram in the high frequencies can assist clinicians in making decisions about which device or configuration of devices provides the greatest access to high-frequency information, as well as whether frequency-lowering technology should be used.

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.

Feasibility of smartphone-based hearing-aid apps for patients with mild hearing loss: an exploratory pilot study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willy Nguyen ◽  
Miseung Koo ◽  
Seung Ha Oh ◽  
Jun Ho Lee ◽  
Moo Kyun Park
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
Consumer Devices ◽  
Selection Of

BACKGROUND Underuse of hearing aids is caused by several factors, including the stigma associated with hearing disability, affordability, and lack of awareness of rising hearing impairment associated with the growing population. Thus, there is a significant opportunity for the development of direct-to-consumer devices. For the past few years, smartphone-based hearing-aid apps have become more numerous and diverse, but few studies have investigated them. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to elucidate the electroacoustic characteristics and potential user benefits of a selection of currently available hearing-aid apps. METHODS We investigated the apps based on hearing-aid control standards (American National Standards Institute) using measurement procedures from previous studies. We categorized the apps and excluded those we considered inefficient. We investigated a selection of user-friendly, low-end apps, EarMachine and Sound Amplifier, with warble-tone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise test in quiet and noise-front conditions in a group of users with mild hearing impairment (n = 7) as a pilot for a future long-term investigation. Results from the apps were compared with those of a conventional hearing aid. RESULTS Five of 14 apps were considered unusable based on low scores in several metrics, while the others varied across the range of electroacoustic measurements. The apps that we considered “high end” that provided lower processing latencies and audiogram-based fitting algorithms were superior overall. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using hearing aid, while the low end hearing-aid apps had limited benefits on the users. CONCLUSIONS Some apps showed the potential to benefit users with limited cases of minimal or mild hearing loss if the inconvenience of relatively poor electroacoustic performance did not outweigh the benefits of amplification.

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.

Effects of Reducing Low-Frequency Amplification on Consonant Perception in Quiet and Noise

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Gordon-Salant
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Identification Performance ◽  
Phonetic Feature ◽  
Consonant Recognition

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of low-frequency amplification on speech recognition performance by hearing-impaired listeners. Consonant identification performance by subjects with flat hearing losses and high-frequency hearing losses was assessed in three different hearing aid conditions, in quiet and noise. The experimental hearing aids all provided extra high-frequency amplification but differed in the amount of low-frequency amplification. The results showed that listeners with flat hearing losses benefited by low-frequency amplification, whereas subjects with high-frequency hearing losses exhibited deteriorating scores in conditions with greatest low-frequency amplification. Analyses of phonetic feature perception and individual consonant recognition scores revealed subtle interactions between hearing loss configuration and amplification contour.

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.

Hearing Aid Use with Minimal High-Frequency Hearing Loss

1989 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa D. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Social Situations ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Worthwhile Investment

This Study evaluated the use of hearing aids by patients with hearing threshold levels of 20 dB or less at 500 and 1000 Hz and 35 dB or less at 2000 Hz. Ninety-eight patients completed a 30-day trial with amplification. Six months later, patients were interviewed by telephone and questioned on hearing aid use and perceived unaided and aided difficulty in various listening environments. Results of the study demonstrated that patients with minimal high-frequency hearing loss can benefit from the use of hearing aids. Ninety-two percent of the patients elected to purchase the hearing aids and 85% considered the aids a worthwhile investment after 6 months of use. Patients showed a mean improvement from moderate unaided to slight aided difficulty at work and in general social situations. The only variable that predicted success with hearing aids was degree of unaided difficulty at work. Patients who perceived less unaided difficulty at work were less likely to obtain benefit from the use of the hearing aids.

Performance of Custom-Fit versus Fixed-Format Hearing Aids for Precipitously Sloping High-Frequency Hearing Loss

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (07) ◽  
pp. 356-366
Author(s):  
Therese C. Walden ◽  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Mary T. Cord
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
The Real ◽  
Patient Performance

This study compared the real-ear response provided by custom-fit hearing aids to the closest matching fixed-format disposable hearing aids in patients with precipitous high-frequency hearing loss. Laboratory and field measures of aided performance were obtained to compare patient performance with the custom-fit and fixed-format hearing aids. In addition, coupler versus real-ear response differences were compared for the two hearing aid types. The results revealed that relatively close approximations to the real-ear aided responses of the custom-fit instruments were possible for most participants using seven fixed acoustic formats. No significant differences in mean performance between the two instrument types were observed for aided speech recognition or field ratings of aided performance, although mean patient satisfaction was lower for the disposable hearing aids. The real-ear to coupler difference was greater for the disposable hearing aid than for the custom-fit instruments, presumably owing to its deeper insertion into the ear canal.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

FM Verification for the 21 st Century

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leisha Eiten ◽  
Dawna Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Current Technology ◽  
The Past ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: For children with hearing loss, the benefits of FM systems in overcoming deleterious effects of noise, distance, and reverberation have led to recommendations for use beyond classroom settings. It is important that audiologists who recommend and fit these devices understand the rationale and procedures underlying fitting and verification. Objectives: This article reviews previousguidelines for FM verification, addresses technological advances, and introduces verification procedures appropriate for current FM and hearing-aid technology. Methods: Previous guidelines for verification of FM systems are reviewed. Those recommendations that are appropriate for current technology are addressed, as are procedures that are no longer adequate for hearing aids and FM systems utilizing more complex processing than in the past. Technological advances are discussed, and an updated approach to FM verification is proposed. Conclusions: Approaches to verification andfitting of FM systems must keep pace with advances in hearing-aid and FM technology. The transparency approach addressed in this paper is recommended for verification of FM systems coupled to hearing aids.

Evaluation of Special Hearing Aids for Deaf Children

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman P. Erber
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Frequency Limit ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Published Research

Two types of special hearing aid have been developed recently to improve the reception of speech by profoundly deaf children. In a different way, each special system provides greater low-frequency acoustic stimulation to deaf ears than does a conventional hearing aid. One of the devices extends the low-frequency limit of amplification; the other shifts high-frequency energy to a lower frequency range. In general, previous evaluations of these special hearing aids have obtained inconsistent or inconclusive results. This paper reviews most of the published research on the use of special hearing aids by deaf children, summarizes several unpublished studies, and suggests a set of guidelines for future evaluations of special and conventional amplification systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document