Perceptual evaluation of six hearing-aid processing strategies from the perspective of auditory profiling: Insights from the BEAR project

  • Mengfan Wu Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8794-4490
  • Raul Sanchez Lopez Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-2339
  • Mouhamad El-Haj-Ali Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Silje Grini Nielsen Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Michal Fereczkowski Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Torsten Dau Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8110-4343
  • Sébastien Santurette Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; Oticon A/S, Smørum, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6868-5734
  • Tobias Neher Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-9274

Abstract

The current study forms part of the Better hEAring Rehabilitation (BEAR) project, which aims at developing new clinical tools for characterizing individual hearing loss and for assessing hearing-aid (HA) benefit. Its purpose was to investigate potential interactions between four auditory profiles and three measures of HA outcome obtained for six HA processing strategies. Measurements were carried out in a realistic noise environment at signal-to-noise ratios that were set based on individual aided speech reception thresholds (SRT50). Speech recognition scores and ratings of overall quality and noise annoyance were collected in two spatial conditions. The stimuli were generated with the help of a HA simulator and presented via headphones to 60 older, habitual HA users who had previously been profiled based on a data-driven approach (Sanchez-Lopez et al., 2019). The four auditory profiles differed significantly in terms of mean aided SRT50 and interacted significantly with the HA processing strategies for speech recognition in one spatial condition. Moreover, the correlation-pattern between the speech recognition scores and subjective ratings differed among the auditory profiles.

 

References

Bisgaard, N., Vlaming, M. S., and Dahlquist, M. (2010). “Standard audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 measurement procedure,” Trends Amplif., 14(2), 113-120. doi:10.1177/1084713810379609

Brons, I., Houben, R., and Dreschler, W. A. (2014). “Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners,” Trends Hear., 18, 2331216514553924.

Cox, R. M., Johnson, J. A., and Xu, J. (2016). “Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life I: the patients’ perspective,” Ear Hearing, 37(4), e224.

Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., and Elberling, C. (2006). “Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings–1. Patterns of benefit,” Int. J. Audiol., 45(3), 130-152. doi:10.1080/14992020500429518

Holube, I., Fredelake, S., Vlaming, M., and Kollmeier, B. (2010). “Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS),” Int. J. Audiol., 49(12), 891-903. doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.506889

Johannesen, P. T., Pérez-González, P., Kalluri, S., Blanco, J. L., and Lopez-Poveda, E. A. (2016). “The influence of cochlear mechanical dysfunction, temporal processing deficits, and age on the intelligibility of audible speech in noise for hearing-impaired listeners,” Trends Hear, 20, 2331216516641055.

Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Convery, E., and Mejia, J. (2013). “Factors influencing individual variation in perceptual directional microphone benefit,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 24(10), 955-968.

Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Flax, M., Ching, T., and Brewer, S. (2011). “The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure,” Audiol. Res., 1(1).

Keidser, G., and Grant, F. (2001). “Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two- channel device,” Ear Hearing, 22(6), 501-515.

Lopez-Poveda, E. A., Johannesen, P. T., Perez-González, P., Blanco, J. L., Kalluri, S., and Edwards, B. (2017). “Predictors of hearing-aid outcomes,” Trends Hear, 21, 2331216517730526.

Neher, T., Laugesen, S., Søgaard Jensen, N., and Kragelund, L. (2011). “Can basic auditory and cognitive measures predict hearing-impaired listeners’ localization and spatial speech recognition abilities?,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 130(3), 1542- 1558. doi:10.1121/1.3608122

Picou, E. M., Marcrum, S. C., and Ricketts, T. A. (2015). “Evaluation of the effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech recognition and sound quality for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss,” Int. J. Audiol., 54(3), 162-169. doi:10.3109/14992027.2014.961662

Plomp, R. (1978). “Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 63(2), 533-549. doi: 10.1121/1.381753

Prosser, S., Turrini, M., and Arslan, E. (1991). “Effects of different noises on speech discrimination by the elderly,” Acta Otolaryngol., 111(sup476), 136-142. Sanchez-Lopez, R., Fereczkowski, M., Bianchi, F., Piechowiak, T., Hau, O.,

Pedersen, M. S., Behrens, T., Neher, T., Dau, T. and Santurette, S. (2018). “Technical evaluation of hearing-aid fitting parameters for different auditory profiles,” Euronoise 2018.

Sanchez-Lopez, R., Fereczkowski, M., Neher, T., Santurette, S., and Dau, T. (2019). “Robust auditory profiling: Improved data-driven method and profile definitions for better hearing rehabilitation,” Poster presented at the 7th International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, August 21 - 23 2019, Nyborg, Denmark. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19762.35526

Sanchez-Lopez R, Nielsen. S. G,, El-Haj-Ali M, Bianchi F, Fereckzowski M, Cañete O, Wu M, Neher T, Dau, T and Santurette S. (2020). “Auditory tests for characterizing hearing deficits: The BEAR test battery,” medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2020.02.17.20021949

SenseLab. (2017). SenseLabOnline (4.0.2 ed.). Hørsholm, Denmark: FORCE Technology.

Wagener, K., Josvassen, J. L., and Ardenkjær, R. (2003). “Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise,” Int. J. Audiol., 42(1), 10-17. doi: 10.3109/14992020309056080

Published
2020-04-08
How to Cite
Wu, M., Sanchez Lopez, R., El-Haj-Ali, M., Nielsen, S., Fereczkowski, M., Dau, T., Santurette, S., & Neher, T. (2020). Perceptual evaluation of six hearing-aid processing strategies from the perspective of auditory profiling: Insights from the BEAR project. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 265-272. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2019-30
Section
2019/4. Novel directions in hearing-instrument technology