PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(01): e54-e63
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702971
Original Research

Comparison of Relative Loudness Judgment in Children using Listening Devices with Typically Developing Children

Shubha Tak 
1   Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
,
Asha Yathiraj 
1   Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Loudness perception is considered important for the perception of emotions, relative distance and stress patterns. However, certain digital hearing devices worn by those with hearing impairment may affect their loudness perception. This could happen in devices that have compression circuits to make loud sounds soft and soft sounds loud. These devices could hamper children from gaining knowledge about loudness of acoustical signals.

Objective To compare relative loudness judgment of children using listening devices with age-matched typically developing children.

Methods The relative loudness judgment of sounds created by day-to-day objects were evaluated on 60 children (20 normal-hearing, 20 hearing aid users, & 20 cochlear implant users), utilizing a standard group comparison design. Using a two-alternate forced-choice technique, the children were required to select picturized sound sources that were louder.

Results The majority of the participants obtained good scores and poorer scores were mainly obtained by children using cochlear implants. The cochlear implant users obtained significantly lower scores than the normal-hearing participants. However, the scores were not significantly different between the normal-hearing children and the hearing aid users as well as between the two groups with hearing impairment.

Conclusion Thus, despite loudness being altered by listening devices, children using non-linear hearing aids or cochlear implants are able to develop relative loudness judgment for acoustic stimuli. However, loudness growth for electrical stimuli needs to be studied.

Keywords

relative loudness perception - cochlear implants - non-linear hearing aids


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 17. Juni 2019

Angenommen: 21. Dezember 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. April 2020

© 2020. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Ashmead DH, LeRoy D, Odom RD. Perception of the relative distances of nearby sound sources. Percept Psychophys 1990; 47 (04) 326-331 DOI: 10.3758/BF03210871.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Strybel TZ, Perrott DR. Discrimination of relative distance in the auditory modality: the success and failure of the loudness discrimination hypothesis. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (01) 318-320 DOI: 10.1121/1.391064.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 House D. On the perception of mood in speech: Implications for the hearing impaired. Phonum. 1990: 99-108
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Schmidt J, Janse E, Scharenborg O. Perception of Emotion in Conversational Speech by Younger and Older Listeners. Front Psychol 2016; 7: 781 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00781.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Laukkanen A-M, Vilkman E, Alku P, Oksanen H. Physical variations related to stress and emotional state: a preliminary study. J Phonetics 1996; 24 (03) 313-335
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fry DB. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27 (04) 765-768 DOI: 10.1121/1.1908022.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fry DB. Experiments in the perception of stress. Lang Speech 1958; 1 (02) 126
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lieberman P. Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. J Acoust Soc Am 1960; 32 (04) 451-454 DOI: 10.1121/1.1908095.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Collins AA, Gescheider GA. The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (05) 2012-2021 DOI: 10.1121/1.397854.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Serpanos YC, Gravel JS. Assessing growth of loudness in children by cross-modality matching. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (04) 190-202
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dillon H. Hearing Aids. United States of America: Thieme; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Musa-Shufani S, Walger M, von Wedel H, Meister H. Influence of dynamic compression on directional hearing in the horizontal plane. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (03) 279-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moore BC. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (02) 243-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zeng F-G, Galvin III JJ, Zhang C. Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Neuroreport 1998; 9 (08) 1845-1848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zeng F-G, Galvin III JJ. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 60-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 James CJ, Skinner MW, Martin LF. et al. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (02) 157-174 DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000058107.64929.D6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ, Stainsby T, Nopp P, Gault A, Gnansia D. A uniform graphical representation of intensity coding in current-generation cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (05) 533-543 DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000039.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE. Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (03) 230-241 DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000130795.66185.28.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Müller-Deile J, Kiefer J, Wyss J, Nicolai J, Battmer R. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study. Cochlear Implants Int 2008; 9 (01) 8-26 DOI: 10.1179/cim.2008.9.1.8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chatterjee M, Fu Q-J, Shannon RV. Effects of phase duration and electrode separation on loudness growth in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (03) 1637-1644 DOI: 10.1121/1.428448.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pfingst BE, Miller AL, Morris DJ, Zwolan TA, Spelman FA, Clopton BM. Effects of electrical current configuration on stimulus detection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 127-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Smith DW, Finley CC. Effects of electrode configuration on psychophysical strength-duration functions for single biphasic electrical stimuli in cats. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102 (04) 2228-2237 DOI: 10.1121/1.419636.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wolfe J, Schafer EC, John A, Hudson M. The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (04) 533-538 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318210b6ec.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 260-275 DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180312607.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, Macfarlane D. Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (01) 49S-58S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Palmer C, Valente M, Powers T, Mueller H. Eds. The impact of restoring normal loudness growth on speech understanding as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and input level. NIH/VA Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference, Bethesda, MD. 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends Amplif 1997; 2 (01) 6-35 DOI: 10.1177/108471389700200102.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 1996; 25 (03) 153-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Raven J. Raven progressive matrices. Handbook of nonverbal assessment. Springer; 2003: 223-237
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Bzoch KR, League R. Receptive-expressive emergent language scale: Pro-ed. 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 31 All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. Ethical guidelines for Bio-behavioural research involving human subjects. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Tagliaferri B. Paradigm. Perception Research Systems. Inc. www.perceptionresearchsystems.com 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 33 ANSI/ASA S3.1–1999. American national standard maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric rooms.: Standards Secretariate, Acoustical Society of America. ; R2013.
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Shi LF, Doherty KA, Zwislockit JJ. Aided loudness growth and satisfaction with everyday loudness perception in compression hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (03) 206-219
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Schmidt J, Herzog D, Scharenborg O, Janse E. Do Hearing Aids Improve Affect Perception?. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016; 894: 47-55 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25474-6_6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nikakhlagh S, Saki N, Karimi M, Mirahmadi S, Rostami MR. Evaluation of loudness perception performance in cochlear implant users. Biomed Pharmacol J 2015; ••• DOI: 10.13005/bpj/561.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Blamey PJ. Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (02) 77-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar