Using a Digital Language Processor to Quantify the Auditory Environment and the Effect of Hearing Aids for Adults with Hearing Loss

Abstract

Background:

Auditory environments can influence the communication function of individuals with hearing loss and the effects of hearing aids. Therefore, a tool that can objectively characterize a patient’s real-world auditory environments is needed.

Purpose:

To use the Language Environment Analysis (LENA) system to quantify the auditory environments of adults with hearing loss, to examine if the use of hearing aids changes a user’s auditory environment, and to determine the association between LENA variables and self-report hearing aid outcome measures.

Research Design:

This study used a crossover design.

Study Sample:

Participants included 22 adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, age 64–82 yr.

Intervention:

Participants were fitted with bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aids from a major manufacturer.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The LENA system consists of a digital language processor (DLP) that is worn by an individual and records up to 16 hr of the individual’s auditory environment. The recording is then automatically categorized according to time spent in different types of auditory environments (e.g., meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound) by the LENA algorithms. The LENA system also characterizes the user’s auditory environment by providing the sound levels of different auditory categories. Participants in the present study wore a LENA DLP in an unaided condition and aided condition, which each lasted six to eight days. Participants wore bilateral hearing aids in the aided condition. Percentage of time spent in each auditory environment, as well as median levels of TV/electronic sounds and speech, were compared between subjects’ unaided and aided conditions using paired sample t tests. LENA data were also compared to self-report measures of hearing disability and hearing aid benefit using Pearson correlations.

Results:

Overall, participants spent the greatest percentage of time in silence (∼40%), relative to other auditory environments. Participants spent ∼12% and 26% of their time in meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound environments, respectively. No significant differences were found between mean percentage of time spent in each auditory environment in the unaided and aided conditions. Median TV/electronic sound levels were on average 2.4 dB lower in the aided condition than in the unaided condition; speech levels were not significantly different between the two conditions. TV/electronic sound and speech levels did not significantly correlate with self-report data.

Conclusions:

The LENA system can provide rich data to characterize the everyday auditory environments of older adults with hearing loss. Although TV/electronic sound level was significantly lower in the aided than unaided condition, the use of hearing aids seemed not to substantially change users’ auditory environments. Because there is no significant association between objective LENA variables and self-report questionnaire outcomes, these two types of measures may assess different aspects of communication function. The feasibility of using LENA in clinical settings is discussed.

Key Words

auditory environment - hearing aids - hearing loss - patient outcome assessment

This work was funded by NIH/NIDCD (R03DC012551).

Portions of this work were presented at the 42nd Annual Scientific and Technology Conference of the American Auditory Society in Scottsdale, AZ, March 5–7, 2015, and at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention in Denver, CO, November 11–14, 2015.

• REFERENCES

• Abrams HB, Hnath-Chisolm T, Guerreiro SM, Ritterman SI. 1992; The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. Ear Hear 13 (05) 371-377
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2010. Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6. New York: ANSI;
• Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. 1993; Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36 (04) 820-831
• Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Johnson TA, Flamme GA. 2003; Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear 24 (03) 215-224
• Boyle PJ, Nunn TB, O’Connor AF, Moore BCJ. 2013; STARR: a speech test for evaluation of the effectiveness of auditory prostheses under realistic conditions. Ear Hear 34 (02) 203-212
• Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. 1987; Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 236 4798 157-161
• Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles ST. 1999; Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am Psychol 54 (03) 165-181
• Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Portz LJ, Abrams HB, Lesner S, McCarthy PA, Newman CW. 2007; A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (02) 151-183
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. 1992; Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear 13 (03) 131-141
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. 1995; The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16 (02) 176-186
• Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. 1989; The Connected Speech Test version 3: audiovisual administration. Ear Hear 10 (01) 29-32
• Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray G. 1999; Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (01) 1-13
• 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 R, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Dillon H, Bentler R, Stephens D, Arlinger S, Beck L, Wilkerson D, Kramer S, Kricos P, Gagné JP, Bess F, Hallberg L. 2000; Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear 21 (4, Suppl) 106S-115S
• Dawes P, Cruickshanks KJ, Fischer ME, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM. 2015; Hearing-aid use and long-term health outcomes: hearing handicap, mental health, social engagement, cognitive function, physical health, and mortality. Int J Audiol 54 (11) 838-844
• Ford M, Baer CT, Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S. 2008. The LENA™ Language Environment Analysis System: Audio Specifications of the DLP-0121. LENA Technical Report . Boulder, CO: LENA Foundation;
• Gatehouse S. 1999; Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 10: 80-103
• Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. 2003; Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 42 1, (Suppl) S77-S85
• Gatehouse S, Noble W. 2004; The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43 (02) 85-99
• Gilkerson J, Richards JA, Topping KJ. 2015; The impact of book reading in the early years on parent-child language interaction. J Early Child Literacy 17 (01) 92-110
• Gopinath B, Schneider J, McMahon CM, Teber E, Leeder SR, Mitchell P. 2012; Severity of age-related hearing loss is associated with impaired activities of daily living. Age Ageing 41 (02) 195-200
• Humes LE, Garner CB, Wilson DL, Barlow NN. 2001; Hearing-aid outcome measured following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44 (03) 469-486
• Jensen NS, Nielsen C. 2005 Auditory ecology in a group of experienced hearing-aid users: can knowledge about hearing-aid users’ auditory ecology improve their rehabilitation? Proceedings of the 21st Danavox Symposium, Danavox Jubilee Foundation, Kolding, Denmark, 235–260
• Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. 1977; Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61 (05) 1337-1351
• Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 (04) 2395-2405
• Li L, Vikani AR, Harris GC, Lin FR. 2014; Feasibility study to quantify the auditory and social environment of older adults using a digital language processor. Otol Neurotol 35 (08) 1301-1305
• Lin FR, Thorpe R, Gordon-Salant S, Ferrucci L. 2011; Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 66A [phone]
• Malinoff RL, Weinstein BE. 1989; Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear Hear 10 (06) 354-356
• 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
• Oller DK, Niyogi P, Gray S, Richards JA, Gilkerson J, Xu D, Yapanel U, Warren SF. 2010; Automated vocal analysis of naturalistic recordings from children with autism, language delay, and typical development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107 (30) 13354-13359
• Perez E, McCormack A, Edmonds BA. 2014; Sensitivity to temporal fine structure and hearing-aid outcomes in older adults. Front Neurosci 8: 7
• Pronk M, Deeg DJH, Kramer SE. 2013; Hearing status in older persons: a significant determinant of depression and loneliness? Results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. Am J Audiol 22 (02) 316-320
• Ranganathan B, Counter P, Johnson I. 2011; Validation of self-reported hearing loss using television volume. J Laryngol Otol 125 (01) 18-21
• Rønne FM, Laugesen S, Jensen NS, Hietkamp RK, Pedersen JH. 2013; Magnitude of speech-reception-threshold manipulators for a spatial speech-in-speech test that takes signal-to-noise ratio confounds and ecological validity into account. J Acoust Soc Am 133: 050069-050069
• Saunders GH, Chisolm TH, Abrams HB. 2005; Measuring hearing aid outcomes—not as easy as it seems. J Rehabil Res Dev 42 4, Suppl 2 157-168
• Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. 2008; Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 4: 1-32
• Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. 2015; Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (02) 183-196
• Sosa AV. 2016; Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality of parent-infant communication. JAMA Pediatr 170 (02) 132-137
• Thiemann-Bourque KS, Warren SF, Brady N, Gilkerson J, Richards JA. 2014; Vocal interaction between children with Down syndrome and their parents. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 23 (03) 474-485
• VanDam M, Ambrose SE, Moeller MP. 2012; Quantity of parental language in the home environments of hard-of-hearing 2-year-olds. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 17 (04) 402-420
• Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. 1982; The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3 (03) 128-134
• Vestergaard MD. 2006; Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users: longitudinal trends and relationships between subjective measures of benefit and satisfaction. Int J Audiol 45 (07) 382-392
• Wagener KC, Hansen M, Ludvigsen C. 2008; Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (04) 348-370
• Wu YH, Bentler RA. 2012; Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing?. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (09) 697-711
• Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S. 2009. Reliability of the LENA™ Language Environment Analysis System in Young Children’s Natural Home Environment. LENA Technical Report . Boulder, CO: LENA Foundation;
• Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S, Baer CT. 2009. The LENA™ Language Environment Analysis System: The Interpreted Time Segments (ITS) File. LENA Technical Report . Boulder, CO: LENA Foundation;
• Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S, Gilkerson J, Richards J, Hansen J. 2008 Signal processing for young child speech language development. Workshop on Child, Computer and Interaction, October 23, 2008, Chania, Crete, Greece
• Yamada M, Nishiwaki Y, Michikawa T, Takebayashi T. 2012; Self-reported hearing loss in older adults is associated with future decline in instrumental activities of daily living but not in social participation. J Am Geriatr Soc 60 (07) 1304-1309