The Effect of a High Upper Input Limiting Level on Word Recognition in Noise, Sound Quality Preferences, and Subjective Ratings of Real-World Performance

Oeding, Kristi; Valente, Michael

doi:10.3766/jaaa.14051

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Laboratory evaluation results in the present study were not consistent with previous research. Oeding and Valente (2015) suggested shifting the operating range of the A/D converter upward significantly improved word recognition in noise and sound quality judgments within the laboratory setting; however, several limitations were noted by the authors. Methodological differences between the past and present research may explain discrepancies in the results obtained between the two approaches to EIDR within the laboratory.…”

Section: Laboratory Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Results revealed no significant differences between the conventional and high UILL hearing aids on the SSQ, the LLL, or overall preference. Thus, Oeding and Valente (2015) concluded increasing the UILL of the ADC improved word recognition and sound quality preferences in the laboratory, but these effects were not evident in more real-world settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For example, hearing aid users may be exposed to music with root mean square intensity levels of 100-105 dB SPL (Chasin, 2006;Hockley et al, 2012;Schmidt, 2012;Baekgaard, Knudsen, et al, 2013;Baekgaard, Rose, et al, 2013). In addition, intensity levels of shouted speech and music may reach up to 102 and 122 dB SPL, respectively, if instantaneous peak levels are considered (Oeding and Valente, 2015). Consequently, hearing aid users may experience reduced sound quality and clarity because of ADC peak clipping when attempting to communicate in settings with high input levels such as concerts, sporting events, movie theaters, parties, or crowded restaurants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stated differently, the 96-dB dynamic range created by the 16-bit ADC may be applied to an input dynamic range of 7-103 dB SPL or it may be shifted upward to an input dynamic range of 17-113 dB SPL. Oeding and Valente (2015) evaluated the effect of increasing the upper input level limit (UILL) of the ADC on performance in ten experienced hearing aid users both inside and outside of the laboratory setting. For laboratory-based testing, word recognition in noise and sound quality preference were assessed using recordings made on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the results from shifting the operating range of the A/D converter upward were promising, several limitations were noted by the authors (Oeding and Valente, 2015). For laboratory testing, word recognition was conducted using recordings from hearing aid sets for a flat 50 dB loss presented to participants via earphones at listening levels much lower than levels used to obtain the recordings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Extended Input Dynamic Range on Laboratory and Field-Trial Evaluations in Adult Hearing Aid Users

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital hearing aids using a 16-bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC) provide a 96-dB input dynamic range. The level at which the ADC peak clips and distorts input signals ranges between 95 and 105 dB SPL. Recent research evaluated the effect of extending the input dynamic range in a commercially available hearing aid. Although the results were promising, several limitations were noted by the authors. Laboratory testing was conducted using recordings from hearing aids set for a flat 50-dB loss; however, field testing was conducted with hearing aids fitted for their hearing loss. In addition, participants rarely encountered input levels of sufficient intensity to adequately test the feature and were unable to directly compare aids with and without extended input dynamic range (EIDR) under identical conditions.The effects of EIDR under realistic and repeatable test conditions both within and outside the laboratory setting were evaluated.A repeated measures design was used. The experiment was single-blinded.Twenty adults (14 males and six females) between the ages of 30 and 71 years (average age 62 years) who were experienced hearing aid users participated.Each participant was fit with Oticon Opn hearing instruments binaurally using the National Acoustics Laboratory-Nonlinear 1 fitting strategy. Participants completed a two-week trial period using hearing aids with EIDR and a two-week trial period without EIDR. The initial EIDR condition trial period was counterbalanced. After each trial, laboratory evaluations were obtained at 85 dBC using the Connected Speech Test, the Hearing in Noise Test, and the acceptable noise level (ANL). Satisfaction ratings were conducted at 85 dBC using speech in quiet and in noise as well as music. Field-trial evaluations were obtained using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Satisfaction ratings were also conducted in the field at 85 dBC using speech and music. After the study, each participant indicated which trial period they preferred overall. Repeated measures analysis of variances were conducted to assess listener performance. Pairwise comparisons were then completed for significant main effects.In the laboratory, results did not reveal significant differences between EIDR conditions on any speech perception in noise test or any satisfaction rating measurement. In the field, results did not reveal significant differences between the EIDR conditions on the APHAB or on any of the satisfaction rating measurements. Nine participants (45%) preferred the EIDR condition. Fifteen participants (75%) indicated that speech clarity was the most important factor in determining the overall preference. Sixteen participants (80%) preferred the EIDR condition that resulted in the lower ANL.The use of EIDR in hearing aids within and outside the laboratory under realistic and repeatable test conditions did not positively or negatively impact performance or preference. Results disagreed with previous findings obtained in the laboratory that suggested EIDR improved performance; however, results agreed with previous findings obtained in the field. Future research may consider the effect of hearing aid experience, input level, and noise acceptance on potential benefit with EIDR.

show abstract

Section: Laboratory Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations