J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(06): 457-476
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16060
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Patterns of Aided Loudness Growth in Experienced Adult Listeners with Early-Onset Severe–Profound Hearing Loss

Linda Gottermeier
*   National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
,
Carol De Filippo
*   National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
29. Mai 2020 (online)

Abstract

Background:

Individuals with early-onset severe–profound bilateral hearing loss (S/PHL) manifest diverse levels of benefit and satisfaction with hearing aids (HAs), even with prescriptive HA fitting. Such fittings incorporate normal loudness values, but little is known about aided loudness outcomes in this population and how those outcomes affect benefit or satisfaction.

Purpose:

To describe aided loudness growth and satisfaction with aided listening in experienced adult HA users with S/PHL.

Research Design:

The Contour Test of loudness perception was administered to listeners with S/PHL in the aided sound field using broadband speech, band-limited speech, and warble tones. Patterns and slopes of resultant loudness growth functions were referenced to sound field results from listeners with normal hearing (NH). S/PHL listeners also rated their aided listening satisfaction. It was expected that (1) most S/PHL listeners would demonstrate steeper than normal aided loudness growth, (2) loudness normalization would be associated with better high-frequency detection thresholds and speech recognition, and (3) closer approximation to normal would yield greater satisfaction.

Study Sample:

Participants were paid college-student volunteers: 23 with S/PHL, long-term aided listening experience, and new HAs; 15 with NH.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants rated loudness on four ascending runs per stimulus (5-dB increments) using categories defined in 1997 by Cox and colleagues. The region between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the NH distribution constituted local norms against which location and slope of the S/PHL functions were examined over the range from Quiet to Loud-but-OK. S/PHL functions were categorized on the basis of their configurations (locations/slopes) relative to the norms.

Results:

Pattern of aided loudness was normalized or within 5 dB of the normal region on 37% of trials with sufficient data for analysis. Only one of the 23 S/PHL listeners did not demonstrate Normal/Near-normal loudness on any trials. Four nonnormal patterns were identified: Steep (recruitment-like; 38% of trials); Shifted right, with normal growth rate (10%); Hypersensitive, with most intensities louder than normal (10%); and Shallow, with decreasing growth rate (7%). Listeners with high-frequency average thresholds above 100 dB hearing loss or no phonemic-based speech-discrimination skill were less likely to display normalized loudness. Slope was within norms for 52% of S/PHL trials, most also having a Normal/Near-normal growth pattern. Regardless of measured loudness results, all but four listeners with S/PHL reported satisfactory hearing almost always or most of the time with their HAs in designated priority need areas.

Conclusions:

The variety of aided loudness growth patterns identified reflects the diversity known to characterize individuals with early-onset S/PHL. Loudness rating at the validation stage of HA fit with these listeners is likely to reveal nonnormal loudness, signaling need for further HA adjustment. High satisfaction, however, despite nonnormal loudness growth, suggests that listeners with poor auditory speech recognition may benefit more from aided loudness that supports pattern perception (via the time-intensity waveform of speech), different from most current-day prescription fits.

 
  • REFERENCES

  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2006 Preferred practice patterns for the profession of audiology [preferred practice patterns]. Available from www.asha.org/policy . Accessed 12 October 2016
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2010. 2010 Audiology Survey Summary Report: Number and Type of Responses. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association;
  • Baer T, Moore BC, Kluk K. 2002; Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 112 3 Pt. 1 1133-1144
  • Barker C, Dillon H, Newall P. 2001; Fitting low ratio compression to people with severe and profound hearing losses. Ear Hear 22 (02) 130-141
  • Beck D, Schum D. 2006 Amplification for people with severe and profound hearing loss. News from Oticon: Audiological Research Documentation. Retrieved from http://www.pro.oticonusa.com/∼asset/cache.ashx?id=20401andtype=14andformat=web . Accessed 7 March 2012
  • Bentler RA, Cooley LJ. 2001; An examination of several characteristics that affect the prediction of OSPL90 in hearing aids. Ear Hear 22 (01) 58-64
  • Blamey PJ, Martin LF. 2009; Loudness and satisfaction ratings for hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (04) 272-282
  • Boothroyd A. 1984; Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 27 (01) 134-144
  • Brand T, Hohmann V. 2001; Effect of hearing loss, centre frequency, and bandwidth on the shape of loudness functions in categorical loudness scaling. Audiology 40 (02) 92-103
  • Brokx JP, Snik AF, Pepers-van Lith AI. 1997; Fitting hearing aids in children with severe hearing loss. Scand Audiol Suppl 46: 38-42
  • Byrne D. 1996; Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to?. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (06) 377-395
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. 1990; Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 11 (01) 40-49
  • Cameron B, Cunningham E, Lindner A, Nicol L, Chenoweth L, Driscoll C. 2008; Hearing aid use and satisfaction in young Australian adults with severe to profound hearing loss. Aust N Z J Audiol 30: 59-72
  • Childress T. 2013 Perusing, choosing and using apps. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/Apps4HL . Accessed 17 February 2017
  • Childress T. 2016 Apps for kids (and adults) with hearing loss: listening therapy. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jBcMgGGKgUY2myJz8749IIZIWFwjlxBUjcy35SnahPo/edit#gid=9 . Accessed 17 February 2017
  • Ching TY, Hill M, Dillon H. 2008; Effect of variations in hearing-aid frequency response on real-life functional performance of children with severe or profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 47 (08) 461-475
  • Ching TY, Johnson EE, Hou S, Dillon H, Zhang V, Burns L, van Buynder P, Wong A, Flynn C. 2013; A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: predicted speech intelligibility and loudness. Int J Audiol 52 (Suppl. 2) S29-S38
  • Ching TY, Quar TK, Johnson EE, Newall P, Sharma M. 2015; Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in hearing aids fit to children with severe or profound hearing loss: goodness of fit-to-targets, impacts on predicted loudness and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (03) 260-274
  • Condie R, Tchorz J. 2004 High-power hearing aids and children. Retrieved from http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/pf_article_detail.asp?article_id=576 . Accessed 14 April 2011
  • Convery E, Keidser G. 2011; Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (03) 168-180
  • Cox R. 2005; Choosing a self-report measure for hearing aid fitting outcomes. Semin Hear 26: 149-156
  • Cox RM. 1993; On the evaluation of a new generation of hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev 30 (03) 297-304
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. 1987; Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear 8 (05) (Suppl.) 119S-126S
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. 1997; The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 18 (05) 388-400
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. 2007; Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: contributions to self-report hearing aid outcomes. Ear Hear 28 (02) 141-162
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Johnson J, Rivera I. 2011; Cochlear dead regions in typical hearing aid candidates: prevalence and implications for use of high-frequency speech cues. Ear Hear 32 (03) 339-348
  • Cox RM, Gray GA. 2001; Verifying loudness perception after hearing aid fitting. Am J Audiol 10 (02) 91-98
  • Cramer KD, Erber NP. 1974; A spondee recognition test for young hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord 39 (03) 304-311
  • Davidson LS, Skinner MW. 2006; Audibility and speech perception of children using wide dynamic range compression hearing AIDS. Am J Audiol 15 (02) 141-153
  • Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Brennan M, Stecker GC. 2009; Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 30 (05) 494-504
  • Davis H, Goodman AC. 1966; Subtractive hearing loss, loudness recruitment and decruitment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 75 (01) 87-94
  • Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. 1997; Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8 (01) 27-43
  • Elberling C. 1999; Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (05) 248-260
  • Emerson L, Job A. 2014; Use of the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and international outcome inventory of hearing aids (IOI-HA) as a clinical outcome measure in a rural community. Egypt J Ear Nose Throat Allied Sci 15: 225-230
  • Erber NP. 1979; Speech perception by profoundly hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord 44 (03) 255-270
  • Faulkner A, Ball V, Rosen S, Moore BC, Fourcin A. 1992; Speech pattern hearing aids for the profoundly hearing impaired: speech perception and auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am 91 4 Pt. 1 2136-2155
  • Faulkner A, Rosen S, Moore BC. 1990; Residual frequency selectivity in the profoundly hearing-impaired listener. Br J Audiol 24 (06) 381-392
  • Flynn M, Schmidtke M. 2002 Four fitting issues for severe or profound hearing impairment. Hear Rev. Retrieved from http://www.hearingreview.com/2002/11/four-fitting-issues-for-severe-or-profound-hearing-impairment/ . Accessed 14 April 2011
  • Flynn MC, Dowell RC, Clark GM. 1998; Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (02) 285-299
  • Fowler EP. 1965; Some attributes of “loudness recruitment” and “loudness decruitment”. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 74: 500-506
  • Gabbard S, O’Grady G, Kuk F. 2003; Fitting digital non-linear aids on children with severe-to-profound losses. Hear Rev 10 (07) 44, 46-49
  • Gale E. 2011; Exploring perspectives on cochlear implants and language acquisition within the deaf community. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 16 (01) 121-139
  • Geers AE, Moog JS. 1992; Speech perception and production skills of students with impaired hearing from oral and total communication education settings. J Speech Hear Res 35 (06) 1384-1393
  • Geller D, Margolis RH. 1984; Magnitude estimation of loudness. I: application to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res 27 (01) 20-27
  • Gottermeier L, De Filippo C, Clark C. 2016; Trials of a contralateral hearing aid after long-term unilateral cochlear implant use in early-onset deafness. Am J Audiol 25 (02) 85-99
  • Harris JD, Haines HL, Myers CK. 1952; Loudness perception for pure tones and for speech. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 55 (02) 107-133
  • Hellman RP, Meiselman CH. 1993; Rate of loudness growth for pure tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 93 (02) 966-975
  • Humes L. 1982. Spectral and temporal resolution by the hearing impaired. In: Studebaker G, Bess F. The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report: State of the Art–Research Needs. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology; 16-31
  • Humes L, Amos N. 2009 , September 01 Are your hearing aid fittings “on target”?. The ASHA Leader
  • Hyde M, Power D. 2006; Some ethical dimensions of cochlear implantation for deaf children and their families. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 11 (01) 102-111
  • Jenstad LM, Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC. 1997; Effects of test procedure on individual loudness functions. Ear Hear 18 (05) 401-408
  • Jerger J. 1962; Hearing tests in otologic diagnosis. ASHA 4: 139-145
  • Johnson E. 2012 20Q: Same or different – comparing the latest NAL and DSL prescriptive tartets. Audiol Online. Retrieved from: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/20q-same-or-different-comparing-769 . Accessed 9 September 2016
  • Johnson EE. 2013; Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif 17 (03) 143-170
  • Johnson J, Cox R. 2013 Is normal loudness the appropriate goal for hearing aid fittings? Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ
  • Keidser G, Dillon H, Dyrlund O, Carter L, Hartley D. 2007; Preferred low- and high-frequency compression ratios with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 28: 17-33
  • Keidser G, Hartley D, Carter L. 2008; Long-term usage of modern signal processing by listeners with severe or profound hearing loss: a retrospective survey. Am J Audiol 17 (02) 136-146
  • Kirkwood D. 2010; Survey probes dispensers’ views on key issues raised by consumer reports. Hear J 63 (05) 17-26
  • Kishon-Rabin L, Segal O, Algom D. 2009; Associations and dissociations between psychoacoustic abilities and speech perception in adolescents with severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (04) 956-972
  • Kochkin S. 2005; MarkeTrak VII: customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J 58: 30-43
  • Kuk F, Andersen H, Baekgaard L. 2012; Hearing aids for severe-to-profound losses: business as usual?. Hear Rev 19 (03) 38-48
  • Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. 2000; Hearing aid design and fitting solutions for persons with severe-to-profound losses. Hear J 53 (08) 29-37
  • Kuk FK, Potts L, Valente M, Lee L, Picirrillo J. 2003; Evidence of acclimatization in persons with severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 14 (02) 84-99
  • Launer S, Kühnel V. 2001. Signal processing for severe-to-profound hearing loss. In: Seewald R, Gravel J. A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification 2001: Proceedings of the Second International Conference. Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak AG; 113-120
  • Lindley G. 2009; Children seen to gain extra benefit from greater bandwidth, binaural compression. Hear J 62: 28-33
  • Macrae JH. 1995; Temporary and permanent threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res 38 (04) 949-959
  • Malicka AN, Munro KJ, Baker RJ. 2010; Diagnosing cochlear dead regions in children. Ear Hear 31 (02) 238-246
  • Margolis RH. 1985; Magnitude estimation of loudness. III: performance of selected hearing aid users. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 411-420
  • Marozeau J, Florentine M. 2007; Loudness growth in individual listeners with hearing losses: a review. J Acoust Soc Am 122 (03) EL81-EL87
  • Marriage JE, Moore BC, Stone MA, Baer T. 2005; Effects of three amplification strategies on speech perception by children with severe and profound hearing loss. Ear Hear 26 (01) 35-47
  • Mencher GT, Clack TD, Rupp RR. 1973; Decruitment and the growth of loudness in the ears of brain-damaged adults. Cortex 9 (04) 335-345
  • Moore B. 2003; Speech processing for the hearing-impaired: successes, failures, and implications for speech mechanisms. Speech Commun 41: 81-91
  • Moore B. 2007. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: John Wiley & Sons; 97-101
  • Moore BC. 2001; Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif 5 (01) 1-34
  • Moore BC. 2004; a Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear 25 (02) 98-116
  • Moore BC. 2004; b Testing the concept of softness imperception: loudness near threshold for hearing-impaired ears. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (06) 3103-3111
  • Moore BC, Baer T, Ives DT, Marriage J, Salorio-Corbetto M. 2016; Effects of modified hearing aid fittings on loudness and tone quality for different acoustic scenes. Ear Hear 37 (04) 483-491
  • Mueller H. 2003; Fitting test protocols are “more honored in the breach than the observance”. Hear J 56 (10) 19-26
  • Mueller H. 2014 20Q: Real-ear probe-microphone measures – 30 years of progress?. Audiol Online. Retrived from: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/20q-probe-mic-measures-12410 . Accessed 11 October 2016
  • Mueller H, Picou E. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63: 27-32
  • Mueller H, Powers T. 2001; Consideration of auditory acclimatization in the prescriptive fitting of hearing aids. Semin Hear 22: 103-124
  • Mueller HG, Bentler RA. 2005; Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (07) 461-472
  • Owens E, Schubert ED. 1977; Development of the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Res 20 (03) 463-474
  • Padden C, Humphries T. 1990. Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 91-104
  • Padden C, Humphries T. 2005. Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 47-59 100–117; 170–178
  • Palmer C. 2012 Siemens expert series: implementing a gain learning feature. Retrieved from: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/siemens-expert-series-implementing-gain-11244 . Accessed 11 February 2016
  • Palmer C. 2013 Normal loudness perception: is it important, is it achievable?. Audiol Online. Retrieved from: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/siemens-expert-series-normal-loudness-11984 . Accessed 10 February 2016
  • Palmer C, Lindley G. 2002. Overview and rationale for prescriptive formulas for linear and nonlinear hearing aids. In: Valente M. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing aid Fittings. Thieme Publishers; 1-22
  • Prendergast S. 2005; Use of the California consonant test with children. J Educ Audiol 12: 67-75
  • Priede VM, Coles RR. 1974; Interpretation of loudness recruitment tests--some new concepts and criteria. J Laryngol Otol 88 (07) 641-662
  • Quar TK, Ching TY, Newall P, Sharma M. 2013; Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 52 (05) 322-332
  • Rasmussen AN, Olsen SO, Borgkvist BV, Nielsen LH. 1998; Long-term test-retest reliability of category loudness scaling in normal-hearing subjects using pure-tone stimuli. Scand Audiol 27 (03) 161-167
  • Ricketts TA, Bentler RA. 1996; The effect of test signal type and bandwidth on the categorical scaling of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 99 4 Pt 1 2281-2287
  • Sanders J, Stoody T, Weber J, Mueller G. 2015; Manufacturers’ NAL-NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev 21 (03) 24
  • Schum D. 2009; Fitting severe and profound hearing losses with advanced technologies. Advance Audiologists 11 (02) 34-38 Retrieved from http://audiology.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Content/PrintFriendly.aspx?CC=195328
  • Schwartz DM, Surr RK. 1979; Three experiments on the California consonant test. J Speech Hear Disord 44 (01) 61-72
  • Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. 2005; The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 159-197
  • Scollie SD, Ching TY, Seewald RC, Dillon H, Britton L, Steinberg J, King K. 2010; Children’s speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions. Int J Audiol 49 (Suppl. 1) S26-S34
  • Sherlock LP, Formby C. 2005; Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (02) 85-100
  • Shi L-F, Doherty KA, Zwislockit JJ. 2007; Aided loudness growth and satisfaction with everyday loudness perception in compression hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (03) 206-219
  • Silva I, Epstein M. 2012; Objective estimation of loudness growth in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 131 (01) 353-362
  • Smeds K. 2004; Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?. Ear Hear 25 (02) 159-172
  • Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F, Convery E, Brew C. 2006; Preferred overall loudness. II: listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol 45 (01) 12-25
  • Sockalingam R, Lundh P, Schum D. 2011; Severe to profound hearing loss: what do we know and how do we manage it?. Hear Rev 18 (01) 30-33
  • Souza PE, Jenstad LM, Folino R. 2005; Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear 26 (02) 120-131
  • Stach B. 1998. Clinical Audiology: An Introduction (Chapter 3: The Nature of Hearing Impairment. pp. 89–116) . San Diego, CA: Singular;
  • Tharpe AM, Fino-Szumski MS, Bess FH. 2001; Survey of hearing aid fitting practices for children with multiple impairments. Am J Audiol 10 (01) 32-40
  • Valente M, Abrams H, Benson D, Chisholm T, Citron D, Hampton D, Loavenbruck A, Ricketts T, Solodar H, Sweetow R. 2006; Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiol Today 18 (05) 1-44
  • Vermeulen AM, Beijk CM, Brokx JP, van den Borne S, van den Broek P. 1995; Development of speech perception abilities of profoundly deaf children: a comparison between children with cochlear implants and those with conventional hearing aids. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166: 215-217
  • Vickers DA, Moore BC, Baer T. 2001; Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 110 (02) 1164-1175
  • Villchur E, Killion MC. 2008; Measurement of individual loudness functions by trisection of loudness ranges. Ear Hear 29 (05) 693-703