Literature DB >> 25690773

High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device.

Chelsea Kimlinger1, Ryan McCreery2, Dawna Lewis2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For the last decade, the importance of providing amplification up to 9-10 kHz has been supported by multiple studies involving children and adults. The extent to which a listener with hearing loss can benefit from bandwidth expansion is dependent on the audibility of high-frequency cues. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) devised a standard method for measuring and reporting hearing aid bandwidth for quality-control purposes. However, ANSI bandwidth measurements were never intended to reflect the true frequency range that is audible for a speech stimulus for a person with hearing loss.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the maximum audible frequency of conventional hearing aids using a speech signal as the input through the hearing aid microphone for different degrees of hearing loss, (2) examine how the maximum audible frequency changes when the input stimulus is presented through hearing assistance technology (HAT) systems with cross-coupling of manufacturers' transmitters and receivers, and (3) evaluate how the maximum audible frequency compares with the upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth measure. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Eight behind-the-ear hearing aids from five hearing aid manufacturers were selected based on a range of ANSI bandwidth upper frequency limits. Three audiometric configurations with varied degrees of high-frequency hearing loss were programmed into each hearing aid. Hearing aid responses were measured with the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS), broadband noise, and a short speech token (/asa/) as stimuli presented through a loudspeaker. HAT devices from three manufacturers were used to create five HAT scenarios. These instruments were coupled to the hearing aid programmed for the audiogram that provided the highest maximum audible frequency in the hearing aid analysis. The response from each HAT scenario was obtained using the same three stimuli as during the hearing aid analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: All measurements were collected in an audiometric sound booth on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A custom computer program was used to record responses from KEMAR. Maximum audible frequency was defined as the highest point where the Long-Term Average Speech Spectrum (LTASS) intersected the audiogram.
RESULTS: The average maximum audible frequency measured through KEMAR ranged from 3.5 kHz to beyond 8 kHz and varied significantly across devices, audiograms, and stimuli. The specified upper limit of the ANSI bandwidth was not predictive of the maximum audible frequency across conditions. For most HAT systems, the maximum audible frequency for the hearing aid plus HAT condition was equivalent to the hearing aid for the same measurement configuration. In some cases, however, the HAT system imposed a lower maximum audible frequency than the hearing aid-only condition.
CONCLUSIONS: The maximum audible frequency of behind-the-ear hearing aids is dependent on the degree of hearing loss, amplification device, and stimulus input. Estimating the maximum audible frequency by estimating the frequency where the speech spectrum intersects the audiogram in the high frequencies can assist clinicians in making decisions about which device or configuration of devices provides the greatest access to high-frequency information, as well as whether frequency-lowering technology should be used. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25690773      PMCID: PMC4397964          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.2.3

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


  14 in total

1.  Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Chin-Tuan Tan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS).

Authors:  Inga Holube; Stefan Fredelake; Marcel Vlaming; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Optimizing sound localization with hearing AIDS.

Authors:  D Byrne; W Noble
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1998-06

4.  Basic acoustic considerations of ear canal probe measurements.

Authors:  D D Dirks; G E Kincaid
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults.

Authors:  P G Stelmachowicz; A L Pittman; B M Hoover; D E Lewis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English.

Authors:  M A Mines; B F Hanson; J E Shoup
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  1978 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.500

7.  Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss.

Authors:  Jace Wolfe; Andrew John; Erin Schafer; Myriel Nyffeler; Michael Boretzki; Teresa Caraway
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss.

Authors:  Jace Wolfe; Andrew John; Erin Schafer; Myriel Nyffeler; Michael Boretzki; Teresa Caraway; Mary Hudson
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Effects of digital noise reduction on speech perception for children with hearing loss.

Authors:  Patricia Stelmachowicz; Dawna Lewis; Brenda Hoover; Kanae Nishi; Ryan McCreery; William Woods
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Hearing loss in children and adults: audiometric configuration, asymmetry, and progression.

Authors:  A L Pittman; P G Stelmachowicz
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  10 in total

1.  Vocabulary Facilitates Speech Perception in Children With Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Kelsey E Klein; Elizabeth A Walker; Benjamin Kirby; Ryan W McCreery
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Nonlinear frequency compression: Influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition.

Authors:  Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Using Propensity Score Matching to Address Clinical Questions: The Impact of Remote Microphone Systems on Language Outcomes in Children Who Are Hard of Hearing.

Authors:  Maura Curran; Elizabeth A Walker; Patricia Roush; Meredith Spratford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Audibility and Spectral-Ripple Discrimination Thresholds as Predictors of Word Recognition with Nonlinear Frequency Compression.

Authors:  Marc A Brennan; Ryan W McCreery
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 1.245

5.  Changes in Orientation Behavior due to Extended High-Frequency (5 to 10 kHz) Spatial Cues.

Authors:  William M Whitmer; David McShefferty; Suzanne C Levy; Graham Naylor; Brent Edwards
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Marc A Brennan; Dawna Lewis; Ryan McCreery; Judy Kopun; Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Perceptual Implications of Level- and Frequency-Specific Deviations from Hearing Aid Prescription in Children.

Authors:  Ryan W McCreery; Marc Brennan; Elizabeth A Walker; Meredith Spratford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Relationship of Grammatical Context on Children's Recognition of s/z-Inflected Words.

Authors:  Meredith Spratford; Hannah Hodson McLean; Ryan McCreery
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 9.  Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Lindsey E Jorgensen; Emily A Benson; Ryan W McCreery
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

10.  Word Recognition and Learning: Effects of Hearing Loss and Amplification Feature.

Authors:  Andrea L Pittman; Elizabeth C Stewart; Amanda P Willman; Ian S Odgear
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.