Dataset Information

Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Preference for speech and music processed with nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) and two controls (restricted bandwidth [RBW] and extended bandwidth [EBW] hearing aid processing) was examined in adults and children with hearing loss. PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to determine if stimulus type (music, sentences), age (children, adults), and degree of hearing loss influence listener preference for NFC, RBW, and EBW. RESEARCH DESIGN:Design was a within-participant, quasi-experimental study. Using a round-robin procedure, participants listened to amplified stimuli that were (1) frequency lowered using NFC, (2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the RBW of conventional hearing aid processing, or (3) low-pass filtered at 11 kHz to simulate EBW amplification. The examiner and participants were blinded to the type of processing. Using a two-alternative forced-choice task, participants selected the preferred music or sentence passage. STUDY SAMPLE:Participants included 16 children (ages 8-16 yr) and 16 adults (ages 19-65 yr) with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTION:All participants listened to speech and music processed using a hearing aid simulator fit to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm v5.0a. RESULTS:Children and adults did not differ in their preferences. For speech, participants preferred EBW to both NFC and RBW. Participants also preferred NFC to RBW. Preference was not related to the degree of hearing loss. For music, listeners did not show a preference. However, participants with greater hearing loss preferred NFC to RBW more than participants with less hearing loss. Conversely, participants with greater hearing loss were less likely to prefer EBW to RBW. CONCLUSIONS:Both age groups preferred access to high-frequency sounds, as demonstrated by their preference for either the EBW or NFC conditions over the RBW condition. Preference for EBW can be limited for those with greater degrees of hearing loss, but participants with greater hearing loss may be more likely to prefer NFC. Further investigation using participants with more severe hearing loss may be warranted.

SUBMITTER: Brennan MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4269381 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss.

Brennan Marc A MA McCreery Ryan R Kopun Judy J Hoover Brenda B Alexander Joshua J Lewis Dawna D Stelmachowicz Patricia G PG

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 20141101 10

<h4>Background</h4>Preference for speech and music processed with nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) and two controls (restricted bandwidth [RBW] and extended bandwidth [EBW] hearing aid processing) was examined in adults and children with hearing loss.<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study was to determine if stimulus type (music, sentences), age (children, adults), and degree of hearing loss influence listener preference for NFC, RBW, and EBW.<h4>Research design</h4>Design was a within-p ...[more]

PMID: 25514451

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to test the ability to achieve, maintain, and subjectively benefit from extended high-frequency amplification in a real-world use scenario, with a device that restores audibility for frequencies up to 10 kHz.DesignA total of 78 participants (149 ears) with mild to moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss completed one of two studies conducted across eight clinical sites. Participants were fitted with a light-driven contact hearing aid (the Earlens system) that directly drives the tympanic membrane, allowing extended high-frequency output and amplification with minimal acoustic feedback. Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2 - High Frequency (CAM2)-prescribed gains for experienced users were used for initial fitting, and adjustments were made when required according to participant preferences for loudness and comfort or when measures of functional gain (FG) indicated that more or less gain was needed. Participants wore the devices for an extended period. Prescribed versus adjusted output and gain, frequency-specific FG, and self-perceived benefit assessed with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and a custom questionnaire were documented. Self-perceived benefit results were compared with those for unaided listening and to ratings with participants' own acoustic hearing aids.ResultsThe prescribed low-level insertion gain from 6 to 10 kHz averaged 53 dB across all ears, with a range from 26 to 86 dB. After adjustment, the gain from 6 to 10 kHz decreased to an average of 45 dB with a range from 16 to 86 dB. Measured FG averaged 39 dB from 6 to 10 kHz with a range from 11 to 62 dB. Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit results revealed a significant improvement in communication relative to unaided listening, averaging 28 to 32 percentage points for the background noise, reverberation, and ease of communication subscales. Relative to participants' own hearing aids, the subscales ease of communication and aversiveness showed small but significant improvements for Earlens ranging from 6 to 7 percentage points. For the custom satisfaction questionnaire, most participants rated the Earlens system as better than their own hearing aids in most situations.ConclusionsParticipants used and reported subjective benefit from the Earlens system. Most participants preferred slightly less gain at 6 to 10 kHz than prescribed for experienced users by CAM2, preferring similar gains to those prescribed for inexperienced users, but gains over the extended high frequencies were high relative to those that are currently available with acoustic hearing aids.

Project description:The authors have demonstrated that the limited bandwidth associated with conventional hearing aid amplification prevents useful high-frequency speech information from being transmitted. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of two popular frequency-lowering algorithms and one novel algorithm (spectral envelope decimation) in adults with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss and in normal-hearing controls.Participants listened monaurally through headphones to recordings of nine fricatives and affricates spoken by three women in a vowel-consonant context. Stimuli were mixed with speech-shaped noise at 10 dB SNR and recorded through a Widex Inteo IN-9 and a Phonak Naída UP V behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Frequency transposition (FT) is used in the Inteo and nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) used in the Naída. Both devices were programmed to lower frequencies above 4 kHz, but neither device could lower frequencies above 6 to 7 kHz. Each device was tested under four conditions: frequency lowering deactivated (FT-off and NFC-off), frequency lowering activated (FT and NFC), wideband (WB), and a fourth condition unique to each hearing aid. The WB condition was constructed by mixing recordings from the first condition with high-pass filtered versions of the source stimuli. For the Inteo, the fourth condition consisted of recordings made with the same settings as the first, but with the noise-reduction feature activated (FT-off). For the Naída, the fourth condition was the same as the first condition except that source stimuli were preprocessed by a novel frequency compression algorithm, spectral envelope decimation (SED), designed in MATLAB, which allowed for a more complete lowering of the 4 to 10 kHz input band. A follow-up experiment with NFC used Phonak's Naída SP V BTE, which could also lower a greater range of input frequencies.For normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, performance with FT was significantly worse compared with that in the other conditions. Consistent with previous findings, performance for the hearing-impaired listeners in the WB condition was significantly better than in the FT-off condition. In addition, performance in the SED and WB conditions were both significantly better than in the NFC-off condition and the NFC condition with 6 kHz input bandwidth. There were no significant differences between SED and WB, indicating that improvements in fricative identification obtained by increasing bandwidth can also be obtained using this form of frequency compression. Significant differences between most conditions could be largely attributed to an increase or decrease in confusions for the phonemes /s/ and /z/. In the follow-up experiment, performance in the NFC condition with 10 kHz input bandwidth was significantly better than NFC-off, replicating the results obtained with SED. Furthermore, listeners who performed poorly with NFC-off tended to show the most improvement with NFC.Improvements in the identification of stimuli chosen to be sensitive to the effects of frequency lowering have been demonstrated using two forms of frequency compression (NFC and SED) in individuals with mild to moderate high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. However, negative results caution against using FT for this population. Results also indicate that the advantage of an extended bandwidth as reported here and elsewhere applies to the input bandwidth for frequency compression (NFC/SED) when the start frequency is ?4 kHz.

Dataset Information

Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss.

Publications

Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets