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

Overview

Journal Trends Hear

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2023 Nov 22

PMID 37990543

Authors

Rolph Houben

Ilja Reinten

Wouter A Dreschler

Roland Mathijssen

Tjeerd M H Dijkstra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Preference for noise reduction (NR) strength differs between individuals. The purpose of this study was (1) to investigate whether hearing loss influences this preference, (2) to find the number of distinct settings required to classify participants in similar groups based on their preference for NR strength, and (3) to estimate the number of paired comparisons needed to predict to which preference group a participant belongs. A paired comparison paradigm was used in which participants listened to pairs of speech-in-noise stimuli processed by NR with 10 different strength settings. Participants indicated their preferred sound sample. The 30 participants were divided into three groups according to hearing status (normal hearing, mild hearing loss, and moderate hearing loss). The results showed that (1) participants with moderate hearing loss preferred stronger NR than participants with normal hearing; (2) cluster analysis based solely on the preference for NR strength showed that the data could be described well by dividing the participants into three preference clusters; (3) the appropriate cluster membership could be found with 15 paired comparisons. We conclude that on average, a higher hearing loss is related to a preference for stronger NR, at least for our NR algorithm and our participants. The results show that it might be possible to use a limited set of pre-set NR strengths that can be chosen clinically. For our NR one might use three settings: no NR, intermediate NR, and strong NR. Paired comparisons might be used to find the optimal one of the three settings.

References

Volker C, Ernst S, Kollmeier B . Hearing aid fitting and fine-tuning based on estimated individual traits. Int J Audiol. 2016; 57(sup3):S139-S145. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1257163. View

Arehart K, Souza P, Kates J, Lunner T, Pedersen M . Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(5):505-16. PMC: 4549215. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000173. View

Neher T . Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users' preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality. Front Neurosci. 2014; 8:391. PMC: 4255521. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00391. View

Recker K, Goyette A, Galster J . Preferences for digital noise reduction and microphone mode settings in hearing-impaired listeners with low and high tolerances for background noise. Int J Audiol. 2019; 59(2):90-100. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1671615. View

Luts H, Eneman K, Wouters J, Schulte M, Vormann M, Buechler M . Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 127(3):1491-505. DOI: 10.1121/1.3299168. View

Perry T, Nelson P, Van Tasell D . Listener Factors Explain Little Variability in Self-Adjusted Hearing Aid Gain. Trends Hear. 2019; 23:2331216519837124. PMC: 6423677. DOI: 10.1177/2331216519837124. View

Chong F, Jenstad L . A critical review of hearing-aid single-microphone noise-reduction studies in adults and children. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017; 13(6):600-608. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1392619. View

Neher T, Wagener K . Investigating Differences in Preferred Noise Reduction Strength Among Hearing Aid Users. Trends Hear. 2016; 20. PMC: 5017568. DOI: 10.1177/2331216516655794. View

Wong L, Chen Y, Wang Q, Kuehnel V . Efficacy of a Hearing Aid Noise Reduction Function. Trends Hear. 2018; 22:2331216518782839. PMC: 6048654. DOI: 10.1177/2331216518782839. View

10.

ZERLIN S . A new approach to hearing-aid selection. J Speech Hear Res. 1962; 5:370-6. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.0504.370. View

11.

Hoetink A, Korossy L, Dreschler W . Classification of steady state gain reduction produced by amplitude modulation based noise reduction in digital hearing aids. Int J Audiol. 2009; 48(7):444-55. DOI: 10.1080/14992020902725539. View

12.

Nelson P, Perry T, Gregan M, VanTasell D . Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility. Trends Hear. 2018; 22:2331216518798264. PMC: 6130080. DOI: 10.1177/2331216518798264. View

13.

Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler W . Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear. 2014; 18. PMC: 4227664. DOI: 10.1177/2331216514553924. View

14.

Wu Y, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan S, Welhaven A, Oleson J . Characteristics of Real-World Signal to Noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss. Ear Hear. 2018; 39(2):293-304. PMC: 5824438. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000486. View

15.

Sang J, Hu H, Zheng C, Li G, Lutman M, Bleeck S . Speech quality evaluation of a sparse coding shrinkage noise reduction algorithm with normal hearing and hearing impaired listeners. Hear Res. 2015; 327:175-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.07.019. View

16.

Humes L, Barlow N, Garner C, Wilson D . Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 43(4):879-92. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4304.879. View

17.

Hoffman H, Dobie R, Losonczy K, Themann C, Flamme G . Declining Prevalence of Hearing Loss in US Adults Aged 20 to 69 Years. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 143(3):274-285. PMC: 5576493. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3527. View

18.

Amlani A, Schafer E . Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif. 2010; 13(4):241-59. PMC: 4111476. DOI: 10.1177/1084713809352908. View

19.

Kubiak A, Rennies J, Ewert S, Kollmeier B . Relation between hearing abilities and preferred playback settings for speech perception in complex listening conditions. Int J Audiol. 2021; 61(11):965-974. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2021.1980233. View

20.

Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler W . Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015; 58(4):1363-76. DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0347. View