Literature DB >> 18236647

Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid.

Thomas Lunner1, Elisabet Sundewall-Thorén.   

Abstract

This study which included 23 experienced hearing aid users replicated several of the experiments reported in Gatehouse et al (2003, 2006) with new speech test material, language, and test procedure. The performance measure used was SNR required for 80% correct words in a sentence test. Consistent with Gatehouse et al, this study indicated that subjects showing a low score in a cognitive test (visual letter monitoring) performed better in the speech recognition test with slow time constants than with fast time constants, and performed better in unmodulated noise than in modulated noise, while subjects with high scores on the cognitive test showed the opposite pattern. Furthermore, cognitive test scores were significantly correlated with the differential advantage of fast-acting versus slow-acting compression in conditions of modulated noise. The pure tone average threshold explained 30% of the variance in aided speech recognition in noise under relatively simple listening conditions, while cognitive test scores explained about 40% of the variance under more complex, fluctuating listening conditions, where the pure tone average explained less than 5% of the variance. This suggests that speech recognition under steady-state noise conditions may underestimate the role of cognition in real-life listening.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18236647     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18.7.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  79 in total

Review 1.  The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Chelsea Bates; Michael S Harris; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Survey of Current Practice in the Fitting and Fine-Tuning of Common Signal-Processing Features in Hearing Aids for Adults.

Authors:  Melinda C Anderson; Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Development and efficacy of a frequent-word auditory training protocol for older adults with impaired hearing.

Authors:  Larry E Humes; Matthew H Burk; Lauren E Strauser; Dana L Kinney
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Aided speech-identification performance in single-talker competition by older adults with impaired hearing.

Authors:  Larry E Humes; Maureen Coughlin
Journal:  Scand J Psychol       Date:  2009-10

5.  Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening.

Authors:  Jayne B Ahlstrom; Amy R Horwitz; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Amyn M Amlani; Erin C Schafer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-12

7.  Working memory training to improve speech perception in noise across languages.

Authors:  Erin M Ingvalson; Sumitrajit Dhar; Patrick C M Wong; Hanjun Liu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Restoration of sensory input may improve cognitive and neural function.

Authors:  Hanin Karawani; Kimberly Jenkins; Samira Anderson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 9.  Auditory reality and self-assessment of hearing.

Authors:  William Noble
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06

Review 10.  The design of a project to assess bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting.

Authors:  Stig Arlinger; Stuart Gatehouse; Jürgen Kiessling; Graham Naylor; Hans Verschuure; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.