scholarly journals Evaluating a smartphone digits-in-noise test as part of the audiometric test battery

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni-Mari Potgieter ◽  
De Wet Swanepoel ◽  
Cas Smits
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Battery Design ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Audiometric Test ◽  
Female Subjects

Background: Speech-in-noise tests have become a valuable part of the audiometric test battery providing an indication of a listener’s ability to function in background noise. A simple digits-in-noise (DIN) test could be valuable to support diagnostic hearing assessments, hearing aid fittings and counselling for both paediatric and adult populations. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the South African English smartphone DIN test’s performance as part of the audiometric test battery. Design: This descriptive study evaluated 109 adult subjects (43 male and 66 female subjects) with and without sensorineural hearing loss by comparing pure-tone air conduction thresholds, speech recognition monaural performance scores (SRS dB) and the DIN speech reception threshold (SRT). An additional nine adult hearing aid users (four male and five female subjects) were included in a subset to determine aided and unaided DIN SRTs. Results: The DIN SRT is strongly associated with the best ear 4 frequency pure-tone average (4FPTA) (rs = 0.81) and maximum SRS dB (r = 0.72). The DIN test had high sensitivity and specificity to identify abnormal pure-tone (0.88 and 0.88, respectively) and SRS dB (0.76 and 0.88, respectively) results. There was a mean signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement in the aided condition that demonstrated an overall benefit of 0.84 SNR dB. Conclusion: The DIN SRT was significantly correlated with the best ear 4FPTA and maximum SRS dB. The DIN SRT provides a useful measure of speech recognition in noise that can evaluate hearing aid fittings, manage counselling and hearing expectations.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Audiological Results of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid HC200: Multicenter Results

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Frank F. Jorritsma ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers ◽  
Hans Verschuure
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing Level ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Sixty-two patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss (average bone conduction threshold at 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz ranged from 1 to 44 dB hearing level) were fitted with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA type HC200). Previously, 52 of them had used a conventional bone conduction hearing aid (CBHA) and 10 of them an air conduction hearing aid (ACHA). Audiological tests were conducted to compare the patients' performance with the BAHA to that with their previous conventional hearing aid. In the speech recognition in quiet test, only 5 patients in the CBHA group improved significantly: the majority had 100% scores with both hearing aids. In the speech recognition in noise test, 28 patients improved significantly. The mean improvement in the signal to noise ratio (S/N) in the CBHA group was −2.3 ± 2.4 dB. That none of the patients in the CBHA group performed worse with the BAHA led us to the conclusion that the BAHA is superior to the CBHA. None of the patients in the ACHA group achieved a better speech recognition in quiet score using the BAHA. On average, there was no significant improvement in the S/N ratio in the ACHA group, although in 6 patients the S/N ratio improved significantly, and in 1 patient it worsened significantly. From the whole group, the performance of only 2 patients, both in the ACHA group, was significantly worse with the BAHA on one of the speech recognition tests.

Comparisons of Speech Recognition in Noise by Mildly-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Children Using Hearing Aids and FM Systems

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Adaptive Procedure ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Direct Input ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones ◽  
Impaired Children

Four hearing aid arrangements (monaural-omnidirectional, monaural-directional, binaural-omnidirectional, binaural-directional) and a number of FM system-personal hearing aid combinations (including direct input, neck loop, and silhouette inductor—monaural and binaural—and environmental microphone on and off) were evaluated in a school classroom on nine children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing losses. Two measures of speech recognition in noise were employed. First, the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) yielding 50% identification of spondees was determined using a simple up-down adaptive procedure. Second, word recognition scores were obtained for three amplification arrangements at two different S/Ns (+6 and + 15 dB). The average FM advantage over a personal hearing aid was equivalent to a 15-dB improvement in S/N. Activation of the hearing aid microphone caused most of the FM advantage to disappear. The benefit offered by the FM system decreased as the environmental S/N increased but remained significant even at +15 dB. Significant improvement also was found with the use of directional as compared to omnidirectional microphones, both in the hearing aids and FM teacher microphone.

Working Memory Capacity May Influence Perceived Effort during Aided Speech Recognition in Noise

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 577-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rudner ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Thomas Behrens ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén ◽  
Jerker Rönnberg
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Perceived Effort ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity. Purpose: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. Research Design: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. Study Sample: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). Data Collection and Analysis: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort. Conclusions: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.

Interactions between Cognition, Compression, and Listening Conditions: Effects on Speech-in-Noise Performance in a Two-Channel Hearing Aid

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (07) ◽  
pp. 604-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall-Thorén
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Procedure ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Cognitive Test ◽  
Fast Time ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Pure Tone Average

This study which included 23 experienced hearing aid users replicated several of the experiments reported in Gatehouse et al (2003, 2006) with new speech test material, language, and test procedure. The performance measure used was SNR required for 80% correct words in a sentence test. Consistent with Gatehouse et al, this study indicated that subjects showing a low score in a cognitive test (visual letter monitoring) performed better in the speech recognition test with slow time constants than with fast time constants, and performed better in unmodulated noise than in modulated noise, while subjects with high scores on the cognitive test showed the opposite pattern. Furthermore, cognitive test scores were significantly correlated with the differential advantage of fast-acting versus slow-acting compression in conditions of modulated noise.The pure tone average threshold explained 30% of the variance in aided speech recognition in noise under relatively simple listening conditions, while cognitive test scores explained about 40% of the variance under more complex, fluctuating listening conditions, where the pure tone average explained less than 5% of the variance. This suggests that speech recognition under steady-state noise conditions may underestimate the role of cognition in real-life listening.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

scholarly journals Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Gieseler ◽  
Maike A. S. Tahden ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Kirsten C. Wagener ◽  
Markus Meis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals Dynamic Relation Between Working Memory Capacity and Speech Recognition in Noise During the First 6 Months of Hearing Aid Use

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 233121651455868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine H. N. Ng ◽  
Elisabet Classon ◽  
Birgitta Larsby ◽  
Stig Arlinger ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Dynamic Relation ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Childrenʼs Speech Recognition in Noise Using Omni-Directional and Dual-Microphone Hearing Aid Technology

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith S. Gravel ◽  
Nancy Fausel ◽  
Christine Liskow ◽  
Janie Chobot
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Evaluation of Speech Recognition in Noise with Cochlear Implants and Dynamic FM

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (07) ◽  
pp. 409-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Benjamin Heldner ◽  
Hans Mülder ◽  
Emily Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Use of personal frequency-modulated (FM) systems significantly improves speech recognition in noise for users of cochlear implants (CIs). Previous studies have shown that the most appropriate gain setting on the FM receiver may vary based on the listening situation and the manufacturer of the CI system. Unlike traditional FM systems with fixed-gain settings, Dynamic FM automatically varies the gain of the FM receiver with changes in the ambient noise level. There are no published reports describing the benefits of Dynamic FM use for CI recipients or how Dynamic FM performance varies as a function of CI manufacturer. Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition of Advanced Bionics Corporation or Cochlear Corporation CI recipients using Dynamic FM vs. a traditional FM system and to examine the effects of Autosensitivity on the FM performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients. Research Design: A two-group repeated-measures design. Participants were assigned to a group according to their type of CI. Study Sample: Twenty-five subjects, ranging in age from 8 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria for one or more of the experiments. Thirteen subjects used Advanced Bionics Corporation, and 12 used Cochlear Corporation implants. Intervention: Speech recognition was assessed while subjects used traditional, fixed-gain FM systems and Dynamic FM systems. Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiments 1 and 2, speech recognition was evaluated with a traditional, fixed-gain FM system and a Dynamic FM system using the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and in classroom noise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects of CI manufacturer (Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation), type of FM system (traditional and dynamic), noise level, and use of Autosensitivity for users of Cochlear Corporation implants. Experiment 3 determined the effects of Autosensitivity on speech recognition of Cochlear Corporation implant recipients when listening through the speech processor microphone with the FM system muted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the effects of signal-to-noise ratio and Autosensitivity. Results: In Experiment 1, use of Dynamic FM resulted in better speech recognition in noise for Advanced Bionics recipients relative to traditional FM at noise levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL. Advanced Bionics recipients obtained better speech recognition in noise with FM use when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients. When Autosensitivity was enabled in Experiment 2, the performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients was equivalent to that of Advanced Bionics recipients, and Dynamic FM was significantly better than traditional FM. Results of Experiment 3 indicate that use of Autosensitivity improves speech recognition in noise of signals directed to the speech processor relative to no Autosensitivity. Conclusions: Dynamic FM should be considered for use with persons with CIs to improve speech recognition in noise. At default CI settings, FM performance is better for Advanced Bionics recipients when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients, but use of Autosensitivity by Cochlear Corporation users results in equivalent group performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document