Dataset Information

Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.

ABSTRACT: Background:Cortical entrainment to speech correlates with speech intelligibility and attention to a speech stream in noisy environments. However, there is a lack of data on whether cortical entrainment can help in evaluating hearing aid fittings for subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss. One particular problem that may arise is that hearing aids may alter the speech stimulus during (pre-)processing steps, which might alter cortical entrainment to the speech. Here, the effect of hearing aid processing on cortical entrainment to running speech in hearing impaired subjects was investigated. Methodology:Seventeen native English-speaking subjects with mild-to-moderate hearing loss participated in the study. Hearing function and hearing aid fitting were evaluated using standard clinical procedures. Participants then listened to a 25-min audiobook under aided and unaided conditions at 70 dBA sound pressure level (SPL) in quiet conditions. EEG data were collected using a 32-channel system. Cortical entrainment to speech was evaluated using decoders reconstructing the speech envelope from the EEG data. Null decoders, obtained from EEG and the time-reversed speech envelope, were used to assess the chance level reconstructions. Entrainment in the delta- (1-4 Hz) and theta- (4-8 Hz) band, as well as wideband (1-20 Hz) EEG data was investigated. Results:Significant cortical responses could be detected for all but one subject in all three frequency bands under both aided and unaided conditions. However, no significant differences could be found between the two conditions in the number of responses detected, nor in the strength of cortical entrainment. The results show that the relatively small change in speech input provided by the hearing aid was not sufficient to elicit a detectable change in cortical entrainment. Conclusion:For subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss, cortical entrainment to speech in quiet at an audible level is not affected by hearing aids. These results clear the pathway for exploring the potential to use cortical entrainment to running speech for evaluating hearing aid fitting at lower speech intensities (which could be inaudible when unaided), or using speech in noise conditions.

SUBMITTER: Vanheusden FJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7147120 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.

Vanheusden Frederique J FJ Kegler Mikolaj M Ireland Katie K Georga Constantina C Simpson David M DM Reichenbach Tobias T Bell Steven L SL

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20200403

<h4>Background</h4>Cortical entrainment to speech correlates with speech intelligibility and attention to a speech stream in noisy environments. However, there is a lack of data on whether cortical entrainment can help in evaluating hearing aid fittings for subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss. One particular problem that may arise is that hearing aids may alter the speech stimulus during (pre-)processing steps, which might alter cortical entrainment to the speech. Here, the effect of hea ...[more]

PMID: 32317951

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Project description:Purpose The classroom acoustic standard ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010/Part 1 requires a reverberation time (RT) for children with hearing impairment of 0.3 s, shorter than its requirement of 0.6 s for children with typical hearing. While preliminary data from conference proceedings support this new RT requirement of 0.3 s, peer-reviewed data that support 0.3-s RT are not available on those wearing hearing aids. To help address this, this article compares speech perception performance by children with hearing aids in RTs, including those specified in the ANSI/ASA-2010 standard. A related clinical issue is whether assessments of speech perception conducted in near-anechoic sound booths, which may overestimate performance in reverberant classrooms, may now provide a more reliable estimate when the child is in a classroom with a short RT of 0.3 s. To address this, this study compared speech perception by children with hearing aids in a sound booth to listening in 0.3-s RT. Method Participants listened in classroom RTs of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 s and in a near-anechoic sound booth. All conditions also included a 21-dB range of speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to further represent classroom listening environments. Performance measures using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test were 50% correct word recognition across these acoustic conditions, with supplementary analyses of percent correct. Results Each reduction in RT from 0.9 to 0.6 to 0.3 s significantly benefited the children's perception of speech. Scores obtained in a sound booth were significantly better than those measured in 0.3-s RT. Conclusion These results support the acoustic standard of 0.3-s RT for children with hearing impairment in learning spaces ? 283 m3, as specified in ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010/Part 1. Additionally, speech perception testing in a sound booth did not predict accurately listening ability in a classroom with 0.3-s RT. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.11356487.

Project description:The most common complaint of older hearing impaired (OHI) listeners is difficulty understanding speech in the presence of noise. However, tests of consonant-identification and sentence reception threshold (SeRT) provide different perspectives on the magnitude of impairment. Here we quantified speech perception difficulties in 24 OHI listeners in unaided and aided conditions by analyzing (1) consonant-identification thresholds and consonant confusions for 20 onset and 20 coda consonants in consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllables presented at consonant-specific signal-to-noise (SNR) levels, and (2) SeRTs obtained with the Quick Speech in Noise Test (QSIN) and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). Compared to older normal hearing (ONH) listeners, nearly all unaided OHI listeners showed abnormal consonant-identification thresholds, abnormal consonant confusions, and reduced psychometric function slopes. Average elevations in consonant-identification thresholds exceeded 35 dB, correlated strongly with impairments in mid-frequency hearing, and were greater for hard-to-identify consonants. Advanced digital hearing aids (HAs) improved average consonant-identification thresholds by more than 17 dB, with significant HA benefit seen in 83% of OHI listeners. HAs partially normalized consonant-identification thresholds, reduced abnormal consonant confusions, and increased the slope of psychometric functions. Unaided OHI listeners showed much smaller elevations in SeRTs (mean 6.9 dB) than in consonant-identification thresholds and SeRTs in unaided listening conditions correlated strongly (r = 0.91) with identification thresholds of easily identified consonants. HAs produced minimal SeRT benefit (2.0 dB), with only 38% of OHI listeners showing significant improvement. HA benefit on SeRTs was accurately predicted (r = 0.86) by HA benefit on easily identified consonants. Consonant-identification tests can accurately predict sentence processing deficits and HA benefit in OHI listeners.

Project description:IMPORTANCE Hearing loss (HL) in children can be deleterious to their speech and language development. The standard of practice has been early provision of hearing aids (HAs) to moderate these effects; however, there have been few empirical studies evaluating the effectiveness of this practice on speech and language development among children with mild-to-severe HL. OBJECTIVE To investigate the contributions of aided hearing and duration of HA use to speech and language outcomes in children with mild-to-severe HL. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An observational cross-sectional design was used to examine the association of aided hearing levels and length of HA use with levels of speech and language outcomes. One hundred eighty 3- and 5-year-old children with HL were recruited through records of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and referrals from clinical service providers in the general community in 6 US states. INTERVENTIONS All but 4 children had been fitted with HAs, and measures of aided hearing and the duration of HA use were obtained. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Standardized measures of speech and language ability were obtained. RESULTS Measures of the gain in hearing ability for speech provided by the HA were significantly correlated with levels of speech (?179?=?0.20; P?=?.008) and language: ?155?=?0.21; P?=?.01) ability. These correlations were indicative of modest levels of association between aided hearing and speech and language outcomes. These benefits were found for children with mild and moderate-to-severe HL. In addition, the amount of benefit from aided hearing interacted with the duration of HA experience (Speech: F4,161?=?4.98; P?<?.001; Language: F4,138?=?2.91; P?<?.02). Longer duration of HA experience was most beneficial for children who had the best aided hearing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The degree of improved hearing provided by HAs was associated with better speech and language development in children. In addition, the duration of HA experience interacted with the aided hearing to influence outcomes. These results provide support for the provision of well-fitted HAs to children with HL. In particular, the findings support early HA fitting and HA provision to children with mild HL.

Project description:Hearing aids (HAs) only partially restore the ability of older hearing impaired (OHI) listeners to understand speech in noise, due in large part to persistent deficits in consonant identification. Here, we investigated whether adaptive perceptual training would improve consonant-identification in noise in sixteen aided OHI listeners who underwent 40 hours of computer-based training in their homes. Listeners identified 20 onset and 20 coda consonants in 9,600 consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) syllables containing different vowels (/ɑ/, /i/, or /u/) and spoken by four different talkers. Consonants were presented at three consonant-specific signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) spanning a 12 dB range. Noise levels were adjusted over training sessions based on d' measures. Listeners were tested before and after training to measure (1) changes in consonant-identification thresholds using syllables spoken by familiar and unfamiliar talkers, and (2) sentence reception thresholds (SeRTs) using two different sentence tests. Consonant-identification thresholds improved gradually during training. Laboratory tests of d' thresholds showed an average improvement of 9.1 dB, with 94% of listeners showing statistically significant training benefit. Training normalized consonant confusions and improved the thresholds of some consonants into the normal range. Benefits were equivalent for onset and coda consonants, syllables containing different vowels, and syllables presented at different SNRs. Greater training benefits were found for hard-to-identify consonants and for consonants spoken by familiar than unfamiliar talkers. SeRTs, tested with simple sentences, showed less elevation than consonant-identification thresholds prior to training and failed to show significant training benefit, although SeRT improvements did correlate with improvements in consonant thresholds. We argue that the lack of SeRT improvement reflects the dominant role of top-down semantic processing in processing simple sentences and that greater transfer of benefit would be evident in the comprehension of more unpredictable speech material.

Dataset Information

Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.

Publications

Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets