Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(04): 180-189
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748479
Original Article

Comparison of Performance across Three Directional Hearing Aids

Todd Ricketts
Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
,
Sumit Dhar
Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study compared the speech recognition performance of 12 hearing-impaired listeners fit with three commercially available behind-the-ear hearing aids in both directional and omnidirectional modes. One digitally programmable analog and two "true digital" hearing aids were selected as test instruments. Testing was completed in both "living room" and anechoic room environments. Speech recognition was examined using modified forms of the Hearing in Noise Test and the Nonsense Syllable Test. The single competing stimuli of these tests were replaced with five uncorrelated competing sources. Results revealed a significant speech recognition in noise advantage for all directional hearing aids in comparison to their omnidirectional counterparts. Maximum performance of the directional hearing aids did not significantly vary across circuit type, suggesting that processing differences did not affect maximum directional hearing aid performance. In addition, the results suggest that performance in one reverberant environment cannot be used to accurately predict performance in an environment with differing reverberation.

Abbreviations: A = Phonak Piconet P2 AZ™ omnidirectional; AD = Phonak Piconet P2 AZ™ directional; BTE = behind the ear; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; KEMAR = Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research; NST = Nonsense Syllable Test; Ρ = Siemens Prisma omnidirectional; PD = Siemens PrismaTM directional; PV = Siemens Prisma omnidirectional with maximum VAD; S = Widex Senso™ omnidirectional; SD = Widex Senso directional; SNR = signal-to-noise ratio; TD = threshold of discomfort; VAD = voice activity detector; WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Digital hearing aids - digitally programmable hearing aids - directional microphones - hearing aid performance


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2022

© 1999. 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 dual-microphone BTE. Hear Rev 4:26, 29.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1997). Method for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. (ANSI S3.79–1997). New York: ANSI.
  • Beck L. (1983). Assessment of directional hearing aid characteristics. Audiol Acoust 22:178–191.
  • Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:808–819.
  • Borwick J. (1990). Microphones: Technology and Technique. Oxford, Boston: Focal Press.
  • Cox RM. (1997). The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 18:388–400.
  • Dubno JR. (1978). Predicting Consonant Confusions in Noise on the Basis of Acoustical Analyses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
  • Fortune TW. (1997). Real-ear polar patterns and aided directional sensitivity. J Am Acad Audiol 8:119–131.
  • 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.
  • Killion M, Schulein R, Christensen L, Fabry D, Revit L, Niquette P, Chung K. (1998). Real-world performance of an ITE directional microphone. Hear J 51:24–38.
  • Lurquin P, Rafhay S. (1996). Intelligibility in noise using multi-microphone hearing aids. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 50:103–109.
  • Mueller HG, Grimes A. (1977). Areview of experimental results with directional hearing aids: the relationship to the testing paradigm. Audiol Hear Educ 3:26–27.
  • Mueller HG, Johnson RM. (1979). The effects of various front-to-back ratios on the performance of directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Audiol Soc 5:30–34.
  • Nilsson MJ, Soli SD, Sullivan J. (1994). Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085–1099.
  • Resnick SB, Dubno JR, Hoffnung S, Levitt H. (1975). Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. J Acoust Soc Am 58:114.
  • Ricketts TA, Bentier RA. (1997, April). Validity and Reliability of a Nonsense Syllable test. Presented at the American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
  • Skinner MW. (1980). Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am 67:306–317.
  • Valente Μ, Fabry D, Potts LG. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 6:440–449.
  • van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Plomp R. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 38:211–221.
  • Voss T. (1997). Clinical evaluation of multi-microphone hearing instruments. Hear Rev 4:36, 45–46, 74.