The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users

Plyler, Patrick N.; Tardy, Brittney; Hedrick, Mark

doi:10.3766/jaaa.17068

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After having analyzed the different alternatives, we agree with Pyler et al [2019] regarding the importance of assessing hearing in realistic listening conditions, in order to optimize adaptation and enhance the performance of current hearing aids and implants, particularly regarding word discrimination in noise. In this context, we understand that obtaining standard values in the REAB, for both the control group and the various HL subgroups, will allow for the interpretation of results in clinical practice for each population group, especially when indicating any type of hearing aid, or as tool to introduce changes in its function.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth: Development and Clinical Validation

Vigliano¹,

Huarte²,

Borro³

et al. 2021

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Technological developments to treat hearing loss with different types of hearing aids and auditory implants have improved the auditory perception of patients, particularly in highly complex listening conditions. These devices can be fitted and adapted to enhance speech perception. Audiological tests that assess hearing with and without auditory devices have traditionally taken place in sound-attenuated audiometric booths. Although the insights gained from these tests are extremely useful, they do not accurately reflect everyday listening situations, and accurate information about the potential benefits of the hearing device in real acoustic scenarios cannot be established. Consequently, it is difficult to optimize this technology since fitting cannot be customized. Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate an audiological testing method using a new development, the Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth (REAB), in clinical practice. Materials: We used specifically designed software to perform audiological tests in an 8 m2 sound-attenuated booth. The REAB was designed to conduct audiological tests in standard testing conditions and in new hearing scenarios that simulate real-life situations since sound can be emitted simultaneously or alternately 360° around the patient, along with 3D images. Methods: Prospective study in which subjects were tested randomly in the REAB and the conventional booth (CB) in free field. Results: 150 subjects were recruited, mean age 56 ± 20.7 years. Auditory outcomes for pure-tone audiometry showed a high correlation; this was also the case for speech audiometries in quiet and in noise. The outcome of the new scenarios with real-life noise was plotted, including the mean values and their confidence intervals. A decreasing trend was observed in the results obtained by the different groups, according to their hearing levels. Conclusions: We have developed and validated a new audiological testing method that enables hearing ability to be assessed in listening conditions similar to those found in real life. The REAB complements the tests performed in CBs, thereby aiding the diagnostic process by reproducing acoustic and visual scenarios that conventional tests do not offer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth: Development and Clinical Validation

Vigliano¹,

Huarte²,

Borro³

et al. 2021

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This average provides an approximation to the proportion of time that hearing aid wearers (sampled with a clear elderly age bias) are in “quiet” (∼28%), “noise alone” (∼23%), and speech plus noise (∼29%). Interestingly, despite the fact that the chief complaint of a person with hearing loss is difficulty listening to speech in background noise (Beck & Le Goff, 2018; Nabelek et al., 1991; Wu & Bentler, 2012), and the fact that hearing aid wearers are most dissatisfied with the performance of their devices when they are in the same environment (Nabelek et al., 1991; Plyler et al., 2019; Turan et al., 2019; Walden et al., 2004), actual wearers are only in such environments a fairly small proportion of the time. Their complaints, however, are primary factors driving motivation to seek hearing aids (Olsen et al., 2014; Takahashi et al., 2007; Turan et al., 2019) and satisfaction with hearing aids (Huber et al., 2018; Kochkin, 2005; Korhonen et al., 2017; Picou, 2020; Taylor & Hayes, 2015; Wong et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Environment Classification Among Premium Hearing Instruments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing aids classify acoustic environments into multiple, generic classes for the purposes of guiding signal processing. Information about environmental classification is made available to the clinician for fitting, counseling, and troubleshooting purposes. The goal of this study was to better inform scientists and clinicians about the nature of that information by comparing the classification schemes among five premium hearing instruments in a wide range of acoustic scenes including those that vary in signal-to-noise ratio and overall level (dB SPL). Twenty-eight acoustic scenes representing various prototypical environments were presented to five premium devices mounted on an acoustic manikin. Classification measures were recorded from the brand-specific fitting software then recategorized to generic labels to conceal the device company, including (a) Speech in Quiet, (b) Speech in Noise, (c) Noise, and (d) Music. Twelve normal-hearing listeners also classified each scene. The results revealed a variety of similarities and differences among the five devices and the human subjects. Where some devices were highly dependent on input overall level, others were influenced markedly by signal-to-noise ratio. Differences between human and hearing aid classification were evident for several speech and music scenes. Environmental classification is the heart of the signal processing strategy for any given device, providing key input to subsequent decision-making. Comprehensive assessment of environmental classification is essential when considering the cost of signal processing errors, the potential impact for typical wearers, and the information that is available for use by clinicians. The magnitude of differences among devices is remarkable and to be noted.

show abstract

The Influence of the Stimulus Level Used to Prescribe Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Perception

Brennan,

Rasetshwane,

Kopun

et al. 2024

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) is a signal processing technique designed to lower high frequency inaudible sounds for a listener to a lower frequency that is audible. Because the maximum frequency that is audible to a listener with hearing loss will vary with the input speech level, the input level used to set nonlinear frequency compression could impact speech recognition. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of the input level used to set nonlinear frequency compression on nonsense syllable recognition. Research Design: Nonsense syllable recognition was measured for three NFC fitting condition (i.e., with nonlinear frequency compression set based on speech input levels of 50-, 60-, and 70-dB SPL, respectively), as well as without nonlinear frequency compression (restricted bandwidth condition). Study Sample: Twenty-three adults (ages 42-80 years old) with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were collected, monaurally, using a hearing aid simulator. The start frequency and frequency compression ratios were set based on the SoundRecover Fitting Assistant. Speech stimuli were 657 consonant-vowel-consonant nonwords presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL and mixed with steady noise (6 dB SNR) and scored based on entire word, initial consonant, vowel, and final consonant. Linear mixed effects examined the effects of NFC fitting condition , presentation level, and scoring method on percent correct recognition. Additional predictor variables of start frequency and frequency-compression ratio were examined. Results: Nonsense syllable recognition increased as presentation level increased. Nonsense syllable recognition for all presentation levels was highest when nonlinear frequency compression was set based on the 70 dB SPL input level and decreased significantly when set based on the 60- and 50-dB SPL inputs. Relative to consonant recognition, there was a greater reduction in vowel recognition. Nonsense syllable recognition between NFC fitting conditions improved with increases in the start frequency, where higher start frequencies led to better nonsense word recognition. Conclusions: Nonsense syllable recognition was highest when setting nonlinear frequency compression based on a 70 dB SPL presentation level and suggest that a high presentation level should be used to determine nonlinear frequency compression parameters for an individual patient.

show abstract

The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth: Development and Clinical Validation

Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth: Development and Clinical Validation

A Comparison of Environment Classification Among Premium Hearing Instruments

The Influence of the Stimulus Level Used to Prescribe Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About