PDF herunterladen
Semin Hear 2006; 27(4): 303-310
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-954857
Copyright © 2006 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Selecting and Adjusting Amplification for Older Listeners

Pamela E. Souza1
  • 1Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
22. November 2006 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Older listeners with hearing loss have unique communication needs that dictate the practical and theoretical decisions concerning amplification. Although age-related differences may not be apparent in easy listening situations such as speech in quiet, in complex listening situations such as rapid speech or speech in high levels of background noise older listeners perform more poorly than younger listeners with similar hearing thresholds. This article reviews recent work on older listeners' responses to signal processing strategies used in digital hearing aids. Research results are extended to hearing aid selection and fitting recommendations that can be applied in the clinical setting.

KEYWORDS

Signal processing - digital - directional - age

REFERENCES

  • 1 Kochkin S, Marke VI Trak. Hearing loss population tops 31 million people.  Hear Rev. 2005;  12 16-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Carmeli E, Patish H, Coleman R. The aging hand.  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;  58 146-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gohdes D M, Balamurugan A, Larsen B A, Maylahn C. Age-related eye diseases: an emerging challenge for public health professionals.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2005;  2 A17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Meister H, von Wedel H. Demands on hearing aid features-special signal processing for elderly users?.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  42(suppl 2) 58-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Upfold L J, May A E, Battaglia J A. Hearing aid manipulation skills in an elderly population: a comparison of ITE, BTE and ITC aids.  Br J Audiol. 1990;  24 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 May A E, Upfold J L, Battaglia J A. The advantages and disadvantages of ITC, ITE and BTE hearing aids: diary and interview reports from elderly users.  Br J Audiol. 1990;  24 301-309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Humes L E, Wilson D L, Humes A C. Examination of differences between successful and unsuccessful elderly hearing aid candidates matched for age, hearing loss and gender.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  42 432-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Strom K E. The HR 2005 dispenser survey.  Hear Rev. 2005;  12 18-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jerger J, Chmiel R. Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;  8 269-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Humes L. Speech understanding in the elderly.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;  7 161-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Souza P E, Tremblay K L, Boike K T. Effects of decreased audibility produced by high-pass maskers in younger and older adults.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;  14 427-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Souza P, Boike K. Temporal cues across channels: effects of age and hearing loss.  J Speech Hear Res. 2006;  49 138-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pichora-Fuller M K, Souza P E. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  42(suppl 2) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Burda A N, Scherz J A, Hageman C F, Edwards H T. Age and understanding speakers with Spanish or Taiwanese accents.  Percept Mot Skills. 2003;  97 11-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Olsen W O. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: a summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report.  Am J Audiol. 1998;  7 21-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kirkwood D. Dispensers surveyed on what leads to patient satisfaction.  Hear J. 2005;  58 19-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Souza P. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and speech quality.  Trends Amplif. 2002;  6 131-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jenstad L, Souza P E. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;  48 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Humes L E, Humes L E, Wilson D L. A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design.  Am J Audiol. 2004;  13 39-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Larson V D, Williams D W, Henderson W G et al.. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits.  Ear Hear. 2002;  23 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Boike K. Influence of age on the recognition of amplitude compressed speech in backgrounds varying in temporal complexity [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seattle, WA; University of Washington 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Souza P E. Older listeners' use of temporal cues altered by nonlinear amplification.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;  48 661-674
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Souza P E, Kitch V. The contribution of amplitude envelope cues to sentence identification in young and aged listeners.  Ear Hear. 2001;  22 112-119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Humes L E, Christopherson L. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits.  J Speech Hear Res. 1991;  34 686-693
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jenstad L. The effect of temporal envelope changes on recognition of normal rate and time-compressed speech by young-old and old-old hearing-impaired listeners [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seattle, WA; University of Washington 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment.  Int J Audiol. 2003;  42 S77-S85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Atkinson H H, Cesari M, Kritchevsky S B et al.. Predictors of combined cognitive and physical decline.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;  53 1197-1202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Qiu C, Fratiglioni L. Epidemiology of cerebrovascular disease related cognitive decline.  Int Psychogeriatr. 2003;  15(suppl 1) 105-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I: Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms.  Trends Amplif. 2004;  8 83-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lewis M S, Crandell C C, Valente M, Horn J E. Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;  15 426-439
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;  15 353-364
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yueh B, Souza P E, McDowell J A et al.. Randomized trial of amplification strategies.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;  127 1197-1204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ricketts T A, Hornsby B W. Distance and reverberation effects on directional benefit.  Ear Hear. 2003;  24 472-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Olson L. Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;  13 295-307
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kuk F. Subjective preference for microphone types in daily listening environments.  Hear J. 1996;  49 29-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kuk F, Keenan A D, Lau C C, Ludvigsen C. Performance of a fully adaptive directional microphone to signals presented from various azimuths.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;  16 333-347
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ricketts T, Henry P. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid.  Int J Audiol. 2002;  41 100-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Olson L, Ioannou M, Trine T D. Appraising an automatically switching directional system in the real world.  Hear J. 1999;  57 32-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bentler R A, Tubbs J L, Egge J L, Flamme G A, Dittberner A B. Evaluation of an adaptive directional system in a DSP hearing aid.  Am J Audiol. 2004;  13 73-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Carter A S, Noe C M, Wilson R H. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 261-272
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Strouse A, Wilson R H. Recognition of one- two-, and three-pair dichotic digits under free and directed recall.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;  10 557-571
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone.  Ear Hear. 2004;  25 22-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Fulks J S, Fallon Jr L F. The older worker.  Occup Med. 2001;  16 501-507
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cox R M, Alexander G C, Gray G A. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers.  Ear Hear. 2005;  26 12-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Pamela E SouzaPh.D. 

Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle

WA 98105

eMail: psouza@u.washington.edu

      >