Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 149-157
DOI: 10.1055/a-1673-9989
Research Article

Effect of Hearing Aid Technology Level on New Hearing Aid Users

Jennifer Hausladen
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Patrick N. Plyler
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Bailee Clausen
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Ashton Fincher
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Sarah Norris
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Teresa Russell
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hearing aid manufacturers offer several different levels of technology that vary in sophistication and cost. It would stand to reason that higher technology hearing aids would provide greater benefit in the daily life of the user; however, research does not support this assumption for all users. Recent research in experienced hearing aid users indicated noise acceptance and satisfaction for speech in a large group were significantly improved when using the premium devices and suggested noise acceptance may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of hearing aid technology level on listener outcome measures for new hearing aid users.

Research Design A repeated measures, single-blinded research design was utilized.

Study Sample Twenty-four adults with no previous hearing aid experience were recruited using flyers posted at the University of Tennessee Audiology Clinic and on social media (19 males, 5 females). The average age of the participants was 61 years (48–81 years).

Data Collection and Analysis Participants completed two, 4-week trial periods using Unitron T Moxi Fit FLEX:TRIAL devices programmed with basic or premium technology. Following each trial, laboratory evaluations were conducted using the QuickSIN, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL). Subjective data was obtained using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Short Form, satisfaction ratings, and preference. Data was analyzed using one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance.

Results Speech perception results did not reveal significant differences between technology level on the HINT or QuickSIN; however, ANL was significantly improved for the premium devices. Subjective results revealed significantly improved satisfaction for speech in a large group and overall preference when using premium technology.

Conclusion Group data revealed similar outcomes between technology levels on most measures; however, noise acceptance, satisfaction for speech in a large group, and overall preference were significantly improved when using the premium devices. Individual characteristics such as noise acceptance, age, and degree of hearing loss may be useful when comparing hearing aid technology levels for new hearing aid users.

Keywords

ANL - hearing aids - sensorineural hearing loss

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.


Presentations

Partial findings were presented at the Poster Session at the 33rd Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Virtual, 2021).




Publication History

Received: 28 June 2021

Accepted: 15 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 October 2021

Article published online:
10 October 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Cox RM, Johnson JA, Xu J. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life I: the patients' perspective. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (04) e224-e237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Plyler PN, Hausladen J, Capps M, Cox MA. Effect of hearing aid technology level and individual characteristics on listener outcome measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021; 64 (08) 3317-3329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, DeVries S, Oleson J. Efficacy and effectiveness of advanced hearing aid directional and noise reduction technologies for older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 805-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life II: speech understanding and listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (05) 529-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life II. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 746-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pickett JM, Martin ES, Johnson D. et al. On patterns of speech feature reception by deaf listeners. In: Fant G. ed. International Symposium on Speech Communication Ability and Profound Deafness. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association; 1970. paper 12
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (05) 1001-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Noble W, Jensen NS, Naylor G, Bhullar N, Akeroyd MA. A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: the SSQ12. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (06) 409-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wright D, Gagné JP. Acclimatization to hearing aids by older adults. Ear Hear 2020; 42 (01) 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 American National Standards Institute. Maximum Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms (ANSI S3. 1–1999). New York: American National Standards Institute; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hayes D, Eddins D, Ozmeral E. Benchmarking detection and classification in automatic hearing aids. Poster presentation. International Hearing Aid Research Conference, Lake Tahoe, California; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Yellamsettty A, Ozmeral EJ, Budinsky RA, Eddins DA. A comparison of environment classification among premium hearing instruments. Trends Hear 2021; 24: 1-14
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB, Thelin JW. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (04) 228-236
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Velleman PF, Wilkinson L. Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am Stat 1993; 47: 65-72
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Yund EW, Buckles KM. Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (02) 1206-1223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar