Literature DB >> 14534412

Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids.

Todd Ricketts1, Paula Henry, David Gnewikow.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this experiment was to systematically examine hearing aid benefit as measured by speech recognition and self-assessment methods across omnidirectional and directional hearing aid modes. These data were used to compare directional benefit as measured by speech recognition in the laboratory to hearing aid wearer's perceptions of benefit in everyday environments across full-time directional, full-time omnidirectional, and user selectable directional fittings. Identification of possible listening situations that resulted in different self reported hearing aid benefit as a function of microphone type was a secondary objective of this experiment.
DESIGN: Fifteen adults with symmetrical, sloping sensorineural hearing loss were fitted bilaterally with in-the-ear (ITE) directional hearing aids. Measures of hearing aid benefit included the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB), the Connected Sentence Test (CST), the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and a daily use log. Additionally, two new subscales were developed for administration with the PHAB. These subscales were developed to specifically address situations in which directional hearing aids may provide different degrees of benefit than omnidirectional hearing aids. Participants completed these measures in three conditions: omnidirectional only (O), directional only with low-frequency gain compensation (D), and user-selectable directional/omnidirectional (DO).
RESULTS: Results from the speech intelligibility in noise testing indicated significantly more hearing aid benefit in directional modes than omnidirectional. PHAB results indicated more benefit on the background noise subscale (BN) in the DO condition than in the O condition; however, this directional advantage was not present for the D condition. Although the reliability of the newly proposed subscales is as yet unknown, the data were interpreted as revealing a directional advantage in situations where the signal of interest was in front of the participant and a directional disadvantage in situations where the signal of interest was behind the listener or localization was required.
CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory directional benefit is reflected in self-assessment measures that focus on listening in noise when the sound source of interest is in front of the listener. The use of a directional hearing aid mode; however, may have either a positive, a neutral, or a negative impact on hearing aid benefit measured in noisy situations, depending on the specific listening situation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14534412     DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000094555.89110.0A

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  10 in total

1.  Dispensing rates of four common hearing aid product features: associations with variations in practice among audiologists.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-05-10

Review 2.  Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms.

Authors:  King Chung
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004

3.  A low-noise differential microphone inspired by the ears of the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea.

Authors:  R N Miles; Q Su; W Cui; M Shetye; F L Degertekin; B Bicen; C Garcia; S Jones; N Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Micromachined piezoelectric microphones with in-plane directivity.

Authors:  Michael L Kuntzman; Jia Gloria Lee; Nishshanka N Hewa-Kasakarage; Donghwan Kim; Neal A Hall
Journal:  Appl Phys Lett       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.791

5.  Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds.

Authors:  Catherine V Palmer; Ruth Bentler; H Gustav Mueller
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-06

6.  Hearing Aid Technology Settings and Speech-in-Noise Difficulties.

Authors:  Alyssa Davidson; Nicole Marrone; Pamela Souza
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 1.636

Review 7.  An evidence-based systematic review of directional microphones and digital noise reduction hearing aids in school-age children with hearing loss.

Authors:  Ryan W McCreery; Rebecca A Venediktov; Jaumeiko J Coleman; Hillary M Leech
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  Construct Validity of the Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Xuyang Zhang; Ruth A Bentler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Syed Shabih Hasan; Sean DeVries; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Hearing aid fitting process in users fitted in a federal public institution: part II--Self-assessment questionnaire results.

Authors:  Carine Dias de Freitas; Maristela Julio Costa
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.