Literature DB >> 16959733

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

Catherine V Palmer1, Ruth Bentler, H Gustav Mueller.   

Abstract

Hearing aid users report difficulties using their hearing aids in noisy environments. Problems include understanding speech, loudness discomfort, and annoyance with background noise. Digital noise reduction algorithms have been promoted as a method to solve speech understanding and comfort in noise problems. Research has failed to find improved speech understanding in noise. Little is known about how digital noise reduction affects noise annoyance and aversiveness. The goals of this investigation were to determine how a specific digital noise reduction system affects hearing aid users' perception of noise annoyance and aversiveness and to compare their perceptions to those of normal-hearing listeners. Ratings of noise annoyance and of aversiveness were obtained from 49 participants with moderate sensorineural hearing loss before fitting and after 3 weeks of hearing aid use. Findings were compared to measures obtained from normal-hearing listeners. Perceived annoyance and aversiveness increased with amplification. Annoyance and aversiveness with the hearing aid approximated normal perception. The results of this investigation suggest the need for counseling patients about realistic expectations related to annoyance and aversiveness of sounds at the time of hearing aid fitting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16959733      PMCID: PMC4111518          DOI: 10.1177/1084713806289554

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  21 in total

1.  Norms for the international outcome inventory for hearing aids.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Genevieve C Alexander; Cynthia M Beyer
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid.

Authors:  José L Alcántara; Brian C J Moore; Volker Kühnel; Stefan Launer
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Influence of environmental factors on hearing aid microphone preference.

Authors:  Rauna K Surr; Brian E Walden; Mary T Cord; Laurel Olson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction.

Authors:  Todd A Ricketts; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: II. Self-report outcomes.

Authors:  Catherine Palmer; Ruth Bentler; H Gustav Mueller
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures.

Authors:  R A Bentler; D P Niebuhr; J P Getta; C V Anderson
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1993-08

7.  A clinical trial of the ReSound IC4 hearing device.

Authors:  B E Walden; R K Surr; M T Cord; C V Pavlovic
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies.

Authors:  B E Walden; R K Surr; M T Cord; B Edwards; L Olson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life.

Authors:  Mary T Cord; Rauna K Surr; Brian E Walden; Laurel Olson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.664

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

Authors:  Todd Ricketts; Paula Henry; David Gnewikow
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Digital noise reduction: an overview.

Authors:  Ruth Bentler; Li-Kuei Chiou
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-06

2.  Gain-induced speech distortions and the absence of intelligibility benefit with existing noise-reduction algorithms.

Authors:  Gibak Kim; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  From the editor.

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-03

4.  Effects of noise reduction on AM perception for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  D Timothy Ives; Sridhar Kalluri; Olaf Strelcyk; Stanley Sheft; Franck Miermont; Arnaud Coez; Eric Bizaguet; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-05

5.  Subjective criteria underlying noise-tolerance in the presence of speech.

Authors:  Carol L Mackersie; Nahae Kayden Kim; Stephanie A Lockshaw; Megan N Nash
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.117

6.  Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Anna Gudjonsdottir; Jacob Oleson; Ruth Bentler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 1.245

Review 7.  How neuroscience relates to hearing aid amplification.

Authors:  K L Tremblay; C W Miller
Journal:  Int J Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-18

8.  Directivity and noise reduction in hearing aids: speech perception and benefit.

Authors:  Camila Angélica Quintino; Maria Fernanda Capoani Garcia Mondelli; Déborah Viviane Ferrari
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.