Repeated Measurement of Absolute and Relative Judgments of Loudness: Clinical Relevance for Prescriptive Fitting of Aided Target Gains for soft, Comfortable, and Loud, But Ok Sound Levels

Abstract

This study was undertaken with the purpose of streamlining clinical measures of loudness growth to facilitate and enhance prescriptive fitting of nonlinear hearing aids. Repeated measures of loudness at 500 and 3,000 Hz were obtained bilaterally at monthly intervals over a 6-month period from three groups of young adult listeners. All volunteers had normal audiometric hearing sensitivity and middle ear function, and all denied problems related to sound tolerance. Group 1 performed judgments of soft and loud, but OK for presentation of ascending sound levels. We defined these judgments operationally as absolute judgments of loudness. Group 2 initially performed loudness judgments across a continuum of seven loudness categories ranging from judgments of very soft to uncomfortably loud for presentation of ascending sound levels per the Contour Test of Loudness; we defined these judgments as relative judgments of loudness. In the same session, they then performed the absolute judgments for soft and loud, but OK sound levels. Group 3 performed the same set of loudness judgments as did group 2, but the task order was reversed such that they performed the absolute judgments initially within each test session followed by the relative judgments. The key findings from this study were as follows: (1) Within group, the absolute and relative tasks yielded clinically similar judgments for soft and for loud, but OK sound levels. These judgments were largely independent of task order, ear, frequency, or trial order within a given session. (2) Loudness judgments increased, on average, by ∼3 dB between the first and last test session, which is consistent with the commonly reported acclimatization effect reported for incremental changes in loudness discomfort levels as a consequence of chronic bilateral hearing aid use. (3) Measured and predicted comfortable judgments of loudness were in good agreement for the individual listener and for groups of listeners. These comfortable judgments bisect the measured levels judged for soft and for loud, but OK sounds. (4) Loudness judgments within the same loudness category varied across listeners within group by as much as 50 to 60 dB. Such large variation in judgments of loudness is problematic, especially because hearing-impaired listeners are known to exhibit similarly large ranges of intersubject response variation and, yet, poplar prescriptive fitting strategies continue to use average rather than individual loudness data to fit nonlinear hearing aids. The primary conclusions drawn from these findings are that reliable absolute judgments of soft and loud, but OK are clinically practical and economical to measure and, from these judgments, good estimates of comfortable loudness can also be predicted for individuals or for groups of listeners. Such loudness data, as measured as described in this report, offer promise for streamlining and enhancing prescriptive fitting of nonlinear hearing aids to target gain settings for soft (audible), comfortable, and loud, but OK (tolerable) sound inputs for the individual listener.

Keywords

Absolute and relative loudness judgments - loudness growth - repeated measures

• References

• 1 Dillon H. Hearing aids. New York, NY: Thieme; 2012
• 2 Pascoe D, Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formula for hearing aid gain. In: Jensen J. , ed. Hearing Aid Fitting: Theoretical and Practical Views. Proceedings of the 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Denmark Stougaard Jensen; 1988: 129-152
• 3 Bentler RA, Cooley LJ. An examination of several characteristics that affect the prediction of OSPL90 in hearing aids. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (1) 58-64
• 4 Elberling C. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10 (5) 248-260
• 5 Keller JN. Loudness Discomfort Levels: A Retrospective Study Comparing Data from Pascoe (1988) and Washington University School of Medicine [Au.D. thesis]. St. Louis, MO: Washington University; 2006
• 6 Tyler RS, Pienkowski M, Roncancio ER , et al. A review of hyperacusis and future directions: part I. Definitions and manifestations. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (4) 402-419
• 7 Mueller HG, Bentler RA. Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (7) 461-472
• 8 Goldstein B, Shulman A. Tinnitus-hyperacusis and the loudness discomfort level test – A preliminary report. Int Tinnitus J 1996; 2: 83-89
• 9 Formby C, Hawley ML, Sherlock LP , et al. A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (2) 77-109
• 10 Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S , et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (4) 199-226
• 11 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L , et al. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (4) 159-197
• 12 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends Amplif 1997; 2 (1) 6-35
• 13 Hawkins DB, Schum DJ. LDL measures: an efficient use of clinic time. Am J Audiol 1991; 1 (1) 8-10
• 14 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (5) 388-400
• 15 Sherlock LP, Formby C. Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (2) 85-100
• 16 Littell RC, Stroup WW, Milliken GA, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O. SAS for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2016
• 17 Rhode WS. Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49 (4) 1218-1231
• 18 Robles L, Ruggero MA, Rich NC. Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input-output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80 (5) 1364-1374
• 19 Ruggero MA. Responses to sound of the basilar membrane of the mammalian cochlea. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1992; 2 (4) 449-456
• 20 Hawley ML, Sherlock LP, Formby C. Intra- and intersubject variability in audiometric measures and loudness judgments in older listeners with normal hearing. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 3-25
• 21 Moore BCJ, Oxenham AJ. Psychoacoustic consequences of compression in the peripheral auditory system. Psychol Rev 1998; 105 (1) 108-124
• 22 Byrne D, Dirks D. Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on non-speech auditory abilities. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (3, Suppl): 29S-37S
• 23 Bratt GW, Rosenfeld MAL, Peek BF, Kang J, Williams DW, Larson V. Coupler and real-ear measurement of hearing aid gain and output in the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (4) 308-315
• 24 Formby C, Keaser ML. Secondary treatment benefits achieved by hearing-impaired tinnitus patients using aided environmental sound therapy for TRT: comparisons with matched groups of tinnitus patients using noise generators for sound therapy. Semin Hear 2007; 28 (4) 276-294
• 25 Hamilton AM, Munro KJ. Uncomfortable loudness levels in experienced unilateral and bilateral hearing aid users: evidence of adaptive plasticity following asymmetrical sensory input?. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (9) 667-671
• 26 Mueller HG. How loud is too loud? Using loudness discomfort level measures for hearing aid fitting and verification, part 1. Audiology Online; 2016 . Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/loud-too-using-loudness-discomfort-825-825 . Accessed January 22, 2017
• 27 Skinner MW. Hearing Aid Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1988
• 28 Palmer CV, Lindley IV GA. Reliability of the Contour Test in a population of adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9 (3) 209-215
• 29 Hawkins DB. Loudness discomfort levels: a clinical procedure for hearing aid evaluations. J Speech Hear Disord 1980; 45 (1) 3-15
• 30 Korczak PA, Sherlock LP, Hawley ML, Formby C. Relations among ABR and MLR measures, categorical loudness judgments, and their associated physical intensities. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 94-114
• 31 Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG , et al. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (4) 269-276
• 32 Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (1) 47-55
• 33 Kochkin S. Marke Trak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J 2005; 58 (9) 30-39
• 34 Kochkin S. Marke Trak VII: Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J 2010; 63 (1) 19-27
• 35 Kochkin S. Marke Trak VIII: The key influencing factors in hearing aid purchase intent. Hear Rev 2012; 19 (3) 12-25
• 36 Donahue A, Dubno JR, Beck L. Guest editorial: accessible and affordable hearing health care for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (1) 2-6