Influence of Three Auditory Profiles on Aided Speech Perception in Different Noise Scenarios

Wu, Mengfan; Cañete, Oscar M.; Schmidt, Jesper Hvass; Fereczkowski, Michal; Neher, Tobias

doi:10.1177/23312165211023709

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, before the clinical biomarkers can be established, patient subpopulations with a likely different response to different treatments must be identified. This has been explored in Wu et al ( 2020 , 2021 ) and Sanchez Lopez et al ( 2021 ). A profile-based hearing-aid fitting process has also been implemented in a large field study within the BEAR project.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Tests for Characterizing Hearing Deficits in Listeners With Various Hearing Abilities: The BEAR Test Battery

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Better hEAring Rehabilitation (BEAR) project aims to provide a new clinical profiling tool—a test battery—for hearing loss characterization. Although the loss of sensitivity can be efficiently measured using pure-tone audiometry, the assessment of supra-threshold hearing deficits remains a challenge. In contrast to the classical “attenuation-distortion” model, the proposed BEAR approach is based on the hypothesis that the hearing abilities of a given listener can be characterized along two dimensions, reflecting independent types of perceptual deficits (distortions). A data-driven approach provided evidence for the existence of different auditory profiles with different degrees of distortions. Ten tests were included in a test battery, based on their clinical feasibility, time efficiency, and related evidence from the literature. The tests were divided into six categories: audibility, speech perception, binaural processing abilities, loudness perception, spectro-temporal modulation sensitivity, and spectro-temporal resolution. Seventy-five listeners with symmetric, mild-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss were selected from a clinical population. The analysis of the results showed interrelations among outcomes related to high-frequency processing and outcome measures related to low-frequency processing abilities. The results showed the ability of the tests to reveal differences among individuals and their potential use in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Tests for Characterizing Hearing Deficits in Listeners With Various Hearing Abilities: The BEAR Test Battery

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In earlier work by the authors, large inter-individual differences were observed among profile-C listeners, that is, HA users with profound hearing deficits (Wu et al, 2021, 2020). In the current study, it was hypothesized that cognitive factors would be able to account for at least some of these differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…For those 28 participants tested by Wu et al (2021), their aided outcome data obtained with the same HA (Oticon Opn S1) were reused in the current study. Since the current study followed up on the study of Wu et al (2021), the same fitting procedure was applied here. The individual gains from the proprietary fittings were documented through real ear measurements (REM) in Wu et al (2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two earlier studies, it was shown that listeners belonging to the different auditory profiles differ clearly in terms of their aided SIN performance, as assessed with either a simulated HA and a generic gain prescription (Wu et al, 2020) or clinically available HAs fitted according to manufacturer-recommended procedures (Wu et al, 2021). However, the same was not true when SIN outcome was assessed using a just-follow-conversation task requiring the participants to adjust the target speech to a level that was neither easy nor difficult to follow (Wu et al, 2021). In addition, within some profiles there were noteworthy inter-individual differences in SIN outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting Auditory Profiling: Can Cognitive Factors Improve the Prediction of Aided Speech-in-Noise Outcome?

Christiansen

Fereczkowski

et al. 2022

Trends in Hearing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing aids (HA) are the most common type of rehabilitation treatment for age-related hearing loss. However, HA users often obtain limited benefit from their devices, particularly in noisy environments, and thus many HA candidates do not use them at all. A possible reason for this could be that current HA fittings are audiogram-based, that is, they neglect supra-threshold factors. In an earlier study, an auditory-profiling method was proposed as a basis for more personalized HA fittings. This method classifies HA users into four profiles that differ in terms of hearing sensitivity and supra-threshold hearing abilities. Previously, HA users belonging to these profiles showed significant differences in terms of speech recognition in noise but not subjective assessments of speech-in-noise (SIN) outcome. Moreover, large individual differences within some profiles were observed. The current study therefore explored if cognitive factors can help explain these differences and improve aided outcome prediction. Thirty-nine older HA users completed sets of auditory and SIN tests as well as two tablet-based cognitive measures (the Corsi block-tapping and trail-making tests). Principal component analyses were applied to extract the dominant sources of variance both within individual tests producing many variables and within the three types of tests. Multiple linear regression analyses performed on the extracted components showed that auditory factors were related to aided speech recognition in noise but not to subjective SIN outcome. Cognitive factors were unrelated to aided SIN outcome. Overall, these findings provide limited support for adding those two cognitive tests to the profiling of HA users.

show abstract

“…Spearman’s correlation coefficient showed a moderate correlation between left and right ears ( r S = 0.46, p = 0.005). Within-subject differences between the tested ears exceeded 1.3 dB in 20 participants and thus fell outside the 95% test-retest CI for this task, as calculated based on a within-subject SD of 0.7 dB SNR estimated using data from Nielsen and Dau (2011) and Wu et al (2021). Thus, the majority of the participants showed a small but significant difference in HINT performance across ears.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Predicting Aided Outcome With Aided Word Recognition Scores Measured With Linear Amplification at Above-conversational Levels

Fereczkowski

Neher

2022

Ear &Amp; Hearing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Many hearing aid (HA) users receive limited benefit from amplification, especially when trying to understand speech in noise, and they often report hearing-related residual activity limitations. Current HA fitting strategies are typically based on pure-tone hearing thresholds only, even though suprathreshold factors have been linked to aided outcomes. Furthermore, clinical measures of speech perception such as word recognition scores (WRSs) are performed without frequency-specific amplification, likely resulting in suboptimal speech audibility and thus inaccurate estimates of suprathreshold hearing abilities. Corresponding measures with frequency-specific amplification (“aided”) would likely improve such estimates and enable more accurate aided outcome prediction. Here, we investigated potential links between either unaided WRSs or aided WRSs measured at several above-conversational levels and two established HA outcome measures: The Hearing-In-Noise Test (HINT) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). Design: Thirty-seven older individuals with bilateral hearing impairments participated. Two conditions were tested: unaided and aided, with all stimuli presented over headphones. In the unaided condition, the most comfortable level (MCL) for the presented speech stimuli, WRS at MCL+10 dB as well as uncomfortable levels (UCLs) for narrowband noise stimuli were measured. In the aided condition, all stimuli were individually amplified according to the “National Acoustic Laboratories—Revised, Profound” fitting rule. Aided WRSs were then measured using an Interacoustics Affinity system at three above-conversational levels, allowing for the maximum aided WRS as well as the presence of “rollover” in the performance-intensity function to be estimated. Multivariate data analyses were performed to examine the relations between the HINT (measured using a simulated HA with the NAL-RP amplification) or IOI-HA scores (for the participants’ own HAs) and various potential predictors (age, pure-tone average hearing loss, unaided WRS, aided WRS, rollover presence [ROp], and UCL). Results: Aided WRSs predicted the HINT scores better than any other predictor and were also the only significant predictor of the IOI-HA scores. In addition, UCL and ROp in the aided WRSs were significant predictors of the HINT scores and competed for variance in the statistical models. Neither age nor pure-tone average hearing loss could predict the two aided outcomes. Conclusions: Aided WRSs can predict HA outcome more effectively than unaided WRSs, age or pure-tone audiometry and could be relatively easily implemented in clinical settings. More research is necessary to better understand the relations between ROp, UCL and speech recognition at above-conversational levels.

show abstract

Influence of Three Auditory Profiles on Aided Speech Perception in Different Noise Scenarios

Cited by 5 publications

References 58 publications

Auditory Tests for Characterizing Hearing Deficits in Listeners With Various Hearing Abilities: The BEAR Test Battery

Auditory Tests for Characterizing Hearing Deficits in Listeners With Various Hearing Abilities: The BEAR Test Battery

Revisiting Auditory Profiling: Can Cognitive Factors Improve the Prediction of Aided Speech-in-Noise Outcome?

Predicting Aided Outcome With Aided Word Recognition Scores Measured With Linear Amplification at Above-conversational Levels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About