Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility

Overview

Journal Trends Hear

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2018 Sep 8

PMID 30191767

Citations 19

Authors

Peggy B Nelson

Trevor T Perry

Melanie Gregan

Dianne VanTasell

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The current study used the self-fitting algorithm to allow listeners to self-adjust hearing-aid gain or compression parameters to select gain for speech understanding in a variety of quiet and noise conditions. Thirty listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss adjusted gain parameters in quiet and in several types of noise. Outcomes from self-adjusted gain and audiologist-fit gain indicated consistent within-subject performance but a great deal of between-subject variability. Gain selection did not strongly affect intelligibility within the range of signal-to-noise ratios tested. Implications from the findings are that individual listeners have consistent preferences for gain and may prefer gain configurations that differ greatly from National Acoustic Laboratories-based prescriptions in quiet and in noise.

Citing Articles

Preferred Strength of Noise Reduction for Normally Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Houben R, Reinten I, Dreschler W, Mathijssen R, Dijkstra T Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231211437.

PMID: 37990543 PMC: 10666719. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231211437.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Non-Self-Fitting Presets Compared to Prescription Hearing Aid Fittings and a Personal Sound Amplification Product.

Venkitakrishnan S, Urbanski D, Wu Y Am J Audiol. 2023; :1-24.

PMID: 37956699 PMC: 11001427. DOI: 10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00121.

Personalizing over-the-counter hearing aids using pairwise comparisons.

Vyas D, Brummet R, Anwar Y, Jensen J, Jorgensen E, Wu Y Smart Health (Amst). 2023; 23.

PMID: 37397910 PMC: 10312409. DOI: 10.1016/j.smhl.2021.100231.

Machine Learning-Based Hearing Aid Fitting Personalization Using Clinical Fitting Data.

Mondol S, Kim H, Kim K, Lee S J Healthc Eng. 2022; 2022:1667672.

PMID: 36285186 PMC: 9588352. DOI: 10.1155/2022/1667672.

Personalization of Hearing Aid Fitting Based on Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization.

Ni A, Akbarzadeh S, Lobarinas E, Kehtarnavaz N Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(16).

PMID: 36015791 PMC: 9414822. DOI: 10.3390/s22166033.

References

van Buuren R, Festen J, PLOMP R . Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res. 1995; 38(1):211-21. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3801.211. View

Horwitz A, Turner C . The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1997; 18(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199702000-00001. View

Punch J, Howard M . Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech. J Am Aud Soc. 1978; 4(2):69-76. View

Byrne D . Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986; 80(2):494-504. DOI: 10.1121/1.394045. View

Kuk F, Lau C . Effect of initial setting on convergence to optimal hearing aid setting using a simplex method. Br J Audiol. 1995; 29(5):263-9. DOI: 10.3109/03005369509076741. View

Punch J, Rakerd B, Amlani A . Paired-comparison hearing aid preferences: evaluation of an unforced-choice paradigm. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12(4):190-201. View

Convery E, Keidser G, Dillon H, Hartley L . A self-fitting hearing aid: need and concept. Trends Amplif. 2011; 15(4):157-66. PMC: 4040840. DOI: 10.1177/1084713811427707. View

Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Carney E . Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments. J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37(3):712-9. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3703.712. View

Cox R, Alexander G . Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear. 1992; 13(3):131-41. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199206000-00001. View

10.

Moore B, Fullgrabe C, Stone M . Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons. Ear Hear. 2011; 32(5):556-68. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820b5f4c. View

11.

Johnson E . Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif. 2013; 17(3):143-70. PMC: 4070617. DOI: 10.1177/1084713813506301. View

12.

Smeds K . Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users?. Ear Hear. 2004; 25(2):159-72. DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000120364.13671.e2. View

13.

Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C . Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear. 1987; 8(5 Suppl):119S-126S. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-198710001-00010. View

14.

Kuk F, Pape N . Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36(1):168-77. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3601.168. View

15.

Dreschler W, Keidser G, Convery E, Dillon H . Client-based adjustments of hearing aid gain: the effect of different control configurations. Ear Hear. 2008; 29(2):214-27. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816453a6. View

16.

Kuk F, Harper T, Doubek K . Preferred real-ear insertion gain on a commercial hearing aid at different speech and noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol. 1994; 5(2):99-109. View

17.

Punch J, Parker C . Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. J Speech Hear Res. 1981; 24(3):366-74. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.2403.366. View

18.

Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F . Preferred overall loudness. II: Listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45(1):12-25. DOI: 10.1080/14992020500190177. View

19.

Kuk F, Pape N . The reliability of a modified simplex procedure in hearing aid frequency-response selection. J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35(2):418-29. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3502.418. View

20.

Souza P, Kitch V . Effect of preferred volume setting on speech audibility in different hearing aid circuits. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12(8):415-22. View