OBJECTIVE: To investigate speech recognition performance in noise with bilateral open-fit hearing aids and as reference also with closed earmolds, in omnidirectional mode, directional mode, and directional mode in conjunction with noise reduction. DESIGN: A within-subject design with repeated measures across conditions was used. Speech recognition thresholds in noise were obtained for the different conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty adults without prior experience with hearing aids. All had symmetric sensorineural mild hearing loss in the lower frequencies and moderate to severe hearing loss in the higher frequencies. RESULTS: Speech recognition performance in noise was not significantly better with an omnidirectional microphone compared to unaided, whereas performance was significantly better with a directional microphone (1.6 dB with open fitting and 4.4 dB with closed earmold) compared to unaided. With open fitting, no significant additional advantage was obtained by combining the directional microphone with a noise reduction algorithm, but with closed earmolds a significant additional advantage of 0.8 dB was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The significant, though limited, advantage of directional microphones and the absence of additional significant improvement by a noise reduction algorithm should be considered when fitting open-fit hearing aids.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate speech recognition performance in noise with bilateral open-fit hearing aids and as reference also with closed earmolds, in omnidirectional mode, directional mode, and directional mode in conjunction with noise reduction. DESIGN: A within-subject design with repeated measures across conditions was used. Speech recognition thresholds in noise were obtained for the different conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty adults without prior experience with hearing aids. All had symmetric sensorineural mild hearing loss in the lower frequencies and moderate to severe hearing loss in the higher frequencies. RESULTS: Speech recognition performance in noise was not significantly better with an omnidirectional microphone compared to unaided, whereas performance was significantly better with a directional microphone (1.6 dB with open fitting and 4.4 dB with closed earmold) compared to unaided. With open fitting, no significant additional advantage was obtained by combining the directional microphone with a noise reduction algorithm, but with closed earmolds a significant additional advantage of 0.8 dB was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The significant, though limited, advantage of directional microphones and the absence of additional significant improvement by a noise reduction algorithm should be considered when fitting open-fit hearing aids.