Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(10): 540-560
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748200
Original Article

Comparison of Benefits Provided by Different Hearing Aid Technologies

Brian E. Walden
Army Audiology & Speech Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC
,
Rauna K. Surr
Army Audiology & Speech Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC
,
Mary T. Cord
Army Audiology & Speech Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC
,
Brent Edwards
GN ReSound Corporation, Redwood City, California
,
Laurel Olson
GN ReSound Corporation, Redwood City, California
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The performance of 40 hearing-impaired adults with the GN ReSound digital BZ5 hearing instrument was compared with performance with linear hearing aids with input compression limiting (AGC-I) or two-channel analog wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) instruments. The BZ5 was evaluated with an omnidirectional microphone, dual-microphone directionality, and a noise reduction circuit in combination with dual-microphone directionality. Participants were experienced hearing aid users who were wearing linear AGC-I or analog WDRC instruments at the time of enrolment. Performance was assessed using the Connected Speech Test (CST) presented at several presentation levels and under various conditions of signal degradation and by the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB). Subjective ratings of speech understanding, listening comfort, and sound quality/naturalness were also obtained using 11 -point interval scales. Small performance advantages were observed for WDRC over linear AGC-I, although WDRC did not have to be implemented digitally for these performance advantages to be realized. Substantial performance advantages for the dual microphones over the omnidirectional microphone were observed in the CST results in noise, but participants generally did not perceive these large advantages in everyday listening. The noise reduction circuit provided improved listening comfort but little change in speech understanding.

Abbreviations: AGC-I = automatic gain control with input compression limiting, APHAB = Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, AV = Aversiveness subscale of the PHAB, BN = Background Noise scale of the PHAB, BT2 = behind-the-ear model of GN ReSound analog WDRC hearing aid, BTE = behind-the-ear hearing aid, BZ5 = model name for the trial hearing aid, BZ5DR = directional mode of BZ5, BZ5DR+NR = directional and noise reduction mode of BZ5, BZ5OMNI = omnidirectional mode of BZ5, CD = critical difference, CST = Connected Speech Test, DFS = digital feedback suppression, DS = Distortion Scale of the PHAB, ED3 = in-the-ear model of GN ReSound WDRC analog hearing aid, IC4 = in-the-canal model of GN ReSound WDRC analog hearing aid, LINAGC = linear hearing aid with input compression limiting, NAL-R = National Acoustic Laboratories-Revised, NH = normal hearing, NR = noise reduction, NU-6 = Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, PHAB = Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, PLS = prototype listening situation, QT = Quiet scale of the PHAB, rau = rationalized arcsine unit, RC = Reduced Cues scale of the PHAB, REV = reverberation, S/N = signal-to-noise ratio, UA = unaided, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression, WDRCANLG = analog version of WDRC hearing aid

Key Words

Benefit - digital - directionality - dual microphones - GN ReSound BZ5 hearing instrument - hearing aids - linear - noise reduction - wide dynamic range compression


Publication History

Article published online:
20 April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • Agnew J, Block M. (1997). HINT thresholds for a dual-microphone BTE. Hear Rev 4(9):26, 29–30.
  • Arlinger S, Billermark E. (1999). One year follow-up of users of a digital hearing aid. Br J Audiol 33:223–232.
  • Benson D, Clark T, Johnson JS. (1992). Patient experiences with multiband full dynamic range compression. Ear Hear 13:320–330.
  • Bille M, Jensen A, Kjaerbol E, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Nielson H. (1999). Clinical study of a digital vs an analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol 28:127–135.
  • Byrne D. (1998). Hearing aid clinical trials: specific benefits need specific measures. Am J Audiol 7:17–19.
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. (1987). Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 8(Suppl):119S–126S.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. (1988). Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9:198–207.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C. (1990). Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res 33:343–355.
  • Cox RM, Rivera IM. (1992). Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3:242–254.
  • Dillon H. (1996). Tutorial: compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear 17:287–307.
  • Fabry DA, Walden BE. (1990). Noise-reduction hearing aids: what is the fate of the ART (Adaptive Response Technology)? ASHA 32(June/July):48–51.
  • Food and Drug Administration. (1994). Guidance to Hearing Aid Manufacturers for Substantiation of Claims. Rockville, MD: Author.
  • Gatehouse S. (1993). Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:296–306.
  • Hawkins DB, Yacullo WS. (1984). Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. J Speech Hear Disord 49:278–286.
  • Humes LE, Christensen L, Thomas T, Bess FH, Hedley-Williams A, Bentier R. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42:65–79.
  • Killion M, Schulein R, Christensen L, Fabry D, Revit L, Niquette P, Chung K. (1998). Real-world performance of an ITC directional microphone. Hear J 51(4):24–38.
  • Leeuw AR, Dreschler WA. (1991). Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics. Audiology 30:330–344.
  • Madison TK, Hawkins DB. (1983). The signal-to-noise ratio advantage of directional microphones. Hear Instr 34(2):18, 49.
  • Moore BCJ, Johnson JS, Clark TM, Pluvinage V. (1992). Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 13:349–370.
  • Mueller, HG. (1995). Do hearing aids work in noise? That's a simple question with no easy answer. Hear J 48(4): 13–14, 16–17, 20, 22, 24–26.
  • Mueller HG, Grimes AM, Erdman SA. (1983). Subjective ratings of directional amplification. Hear Instr 34(2): 14–16, 47–48.
  • Nielsen HB, Ludvigsen C. (1978). Effect of hearing aids with directional microphones in different acoustic environments. Scand Audiol 7:217–224.
  • Peterson PM. (1986). Simulating the response of multiple microphones to a single acoustic source in a reverberant room. J Acoust Soc Am 80:1527–1529.
  • Plomp R. (1988). The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 83: 2322–2327.
  • Powers TA, Holube I, Wesselkamp M. (1999). The use of digital features to combat background noise. Hear Rev 3(Suppl):36–39.
  • Preves DA, Sammeth CA, Wynne MK. (1999). Field trial evaluations of a switched directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument. J Am Acad Audiol 10:273–284.
  • Pumford JM, Seewald RC, Scollie SD, Jenstad LM. (2000). Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol 11:23–35.
  • Ricketts T. (2000). Impact of noise source configuration on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear Hear 21:194–205.
  • Ricketts T, Dhar S. (1999). Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10:180–189.
  • Ringdahl A, Magnusson L, Edberg P, Thelin L. (2000). Clinical evaluation of a digital power hearing instrument. Hear Rev 7(3):59–64.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1999). Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12–20.
  • Studebaker GA. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455–462.
  • Studebaker GA, Cox RM, Formby C. (1980). The effect of environment on the directional performance of head-worn hearing aids. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 81–105.
  • Surr RK, Cord MT, Walden BE. (1998). Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 9:165–171.
  • Valente Μ, Fabry DA, Potts LG. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 6:440–449.
  • Valente Μ, Sammeth CA, Potts LG, Wynne MK, Wagner-Escobar M, Coughlin M. (1997). Differences in performance between Oticon MultiFocus Compact and ReSound BT2–E hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8:280–293.
  • Valente Μ, Fabry DA, Potts LG, Sandlin RE. (1998). Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 9:342–360.
  • Valente Μ, Sweetow R, Potts LG, Bingea B. (1999). Digital versus analog signal processing: effect of directional microphone. J Am Acad Audiol 10:133–150.
  • Valente Μ, Schuchman G, Potts LG, Beck LB. (2000). Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 11:181–189.
  • Voss Τ. (1997). Clinical evaluation of multi-microphone hearing instruments. Hear Rev 4(9):36, 45–46, 74.
  • Walden BE. (1997). Toward a model clinical-trials protocol for substantiating hearing aid user-benefit claims. Am J Audiol 6:13–24.
  • Walden BE. (1998). Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Benefit. Presented at the Pre-Convention Workshop on Defining and Measuring the Benefit of Hearing Aids and Assistive Listening Devices, American Academy of Audiology Convention, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Walden BE, Demorest ME, Hepler EL. (1984). A self-report approach to assessing benefits derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.
  • Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Pavlovic CV. (1998). A clinical trial of the ReSound BT2 Personal Hearing System. Am J Audiol 7:85–100.
  • Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Pavlovic CV. (1999). A clinical trial of the ReSound IC4 hearing device. Am J Audiol 8:65–78.
  • Yund EW, Buckles KM. (1995). Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1224–1240.