PURPOSE: To examine whether the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise could differentiate full-time, part-time, and nonusers of hearing aids and whether these effects could predict hearing aid use. METHOD: Participants were separated into 3 groups on the basis of hearing aid use: (a) full-time use, (b) part-time use, or (c) nonuse. Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were measured conventionally and at 8 fixed presentation levels. The effects of presentation level on ANL were determined by calculating global ANL (ANL averaged across presentation level) and ANL growth (slope of the ANL function). RESULTS: Global ANLs were smaller for full-time users than for part-time users and nonusers; however, global ANLs were not different for part-time users and nonusers. ANL growth differentiated full-time users from nonusers only. Conventional ANL predicted hearing aid use with 68% accuracy. Compared with conventional ANL, the accuracy of the prediction for global ANL and ANL growth decreased, and the accuracy of the prediction at presentation levels of 65 to 75 dB HL was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Global ANL differentiated the hearing aid groups in the same manner as conventional ANL. The effects of presentation level on acceptance of noise did not considerably increase the accuracy of the prediction compared with conventional ANL. Clinical applications are discussed.
PURPOSE: To examine whether the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise could differentiate full-time, part-time, and nonusers of hearing aids and whether these effects could predict hearing aid use. METHOD:Participants were separated into 3 groups on the basis of hearing aid use: (a) full-time use, (b) part-time use, or (c) nonuse. Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were measured conventionally and at 8 fixed presentation levels. The effects of presentation level on ANL were determined by calculating global ANL (ANL averaged across presentation level) and ANL growth (slope of the ANL function). RESULTS: Global ANLs were smaller for full-time users than for part-time users and nonusers; however, global ANLs were not different for part-time users and nonusers. ANL growth differentiated full-time users from nonusers only. Conventional ANL predicted hearing aid use with 68% accuracy. Compared with conventional ANL, the accuracy of the prediction for global ANL and ANL growth decreased, and the accuracy of the prediction at presentation levels of 65 to 75 dB HL was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Global ANL differentiated the hearing aid groups in the same manner as conventional ANL. The effects of presentation level on acceptance of noise did not considerably increase the accuracy of the prediction compared with conventional ANL. Clinical applications are discussed.