Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(08): 698-707
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16053
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Measure Hearing Aid Benefit

Francis Kuk
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Eric Seper
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Chi-Chuen Lau
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Petri Korhonen
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

The benefits offered by noise reduction (NR) features on a hearing aid had been studied traditionally using test conditions that set the hearing aids into a stable state of performance. While adequate, this approach does not allow the differentiation of two NR algorithms that differ in their timing characteristics (i.e., activation and stabilization time).

Purpose:

The current study investigated a new method of measuring noise tolerance (Tracking of Noise Tolerance [TNT]) as a means to differentiate hearing aid technologies. The study determined the within-session and between-session reliability of the procedure. The benefits provided by various hearing aid conditions (aided, two NR algorithms, and a directional microphone algorithm) were measured using this procedure. Performance on normal-hearing listeners was also measured for referencing.

Research Design:

A single-blinded, repeated-measures design was used.

Study Sample:

Thirteen experienced hearing aid wearers with a bilaterally symmetrical (≤10 dB) mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study. In addition, seven normal-hearing listeners were tested in the unaided condition.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants tracked the noise level that met the criterion of tolerable noise level (TNL) in the presence of an 85 dB SPL continuous discourse passage. The test conditions included an unaided condition and an aided condition with combinations of NR and microphone modes within the UNIQUE hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR; directional microphone, no NR; and directional microphone, NR) and the DREAM hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR). Each tracking trial lasted 2 min for each hearing aid condition. Normal-hearing listeners tracked in the unaided condition only. Nine of the 13 hearing-impaired listeners returned after 3 mo for retesting in the unaided and aided conditions with the UNIQUE hearing aid. The individual TNL was estimated for each participant for all test conditions. The TNT index was calculated as the difference between 85 dB SPL and the TNL.

Results:

The TNT index varied from 2.2 dB in the omnidirectional microphone, no NR condition to −4.4 dB in the directional microphone, NR on condition. Normal-hearing listeners reported a TNT index of −5.7 dB using this procedure. The averaged improvement in TNT offered by the NR algorithm on the UNIQUE varied from 2.1 dB when used with a directional microphone to 3.0 dB when used with the omnidirectional microphone. The time course of the NR algorithm was different between the UNIQUE and the DREAM hearing aids, with the UNIQUE reaching a stable TNL sooner than the DREAM. The averaged improvement in TNT index from the UNIQUE directional microphone was 3.6 dB when NR was activated and 4.4 dB when NR was deactivated. Together, directional microphone and NR resulted in a total TNT improvement of 6.5 dB. The test–retest reliability of the procedure was high, with an intrasession 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.2 dB and an intersession 95% CI of 4.2 dB.

Conclusions:

The effect of the NR and directional microphone algorithms was measured to be 2–3 and 3.6–4.4 dB, respectively, using the TNT procedure. Because of its tracking property and reliability, this procedure may hold promise in differentiating among some hearing aid features that also differ in their time course of action.

Key Words

directional microphone - noise reduction - reliability - tolerable noise level - tracking noise tolerance
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Baker RJ, Rosen S. 2002; Auditory filter nonlinearity in mild/moderate hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 111 (03) 1330-1339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chung K. 2004; Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif 8 (03) 83-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. 1987; Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 8 (5, Suppl) 119S-126S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. 2014; The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 35 (06) 600-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2010; Marketrak VIII: consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly improving. Hear J 63 (01) 19-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F, Keenan D, Ludvigsen C. 2004; Is real-world directional benefit predictable?. Hear Rev 11 (11) 18-25
    Google Scholar
  • Kuk F, Paludan-Muller C. 2006; Noise management algorithm may improve speech intelligibility in noise. Hear J 59 (04) 62-65
    Google Scholar
  • Lowery KJ, Plyler PN. 2013; The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (08) 649-659
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Marcoux AM, Yathiraj A, Côté I, Logan J. 2006; The effect of a hearing aid noise reduction algorithm on the acquisition of novel speech contrasts. Int J Audiol 45 (12) 707-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. 1991; Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ng EH, Rudner M, Lunner T, Rönnberg J. 2015; Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear 36 (01) 82-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Oeding K, Valente M. 2013; Differences in sensation level between the Widex Soundtracker and two real-ear analyzers. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (08) 660-670
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pearsons K, Bennett R, Fidell S. 1977. Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments. Report no EPA-600/1-77-025 . Washington, DC: US Environmental protection Agency;
    Google Scholar
  • Peeters H, Kuk F, Lau CC, Keenan D. 2009; Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (02) 89-98
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. 2005; Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (05) 270-277
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wong JC, Miller RL, Calhoun BM, Sachs MB, Young ED. 1998; Effects of high sound levels on responses to the vowel /ε/ in cat auditory nerve. Hear Res 123 1–2 61-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wu YH, Stangl E. 2013; The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction. Ear Hear 34 (03) 333-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar