Laboratory evaluation of directional preference: Effect of background noise location and stimulus type

Forfattere

  • Shilpi Banerjee Starkey Laboratories, Inc., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA

Resumé

The aim of this study was to investigate the in uence of background noise location and stimulus type as factors contributing to the discrepancy in directional preference between the laboratory and real-world. The task used for this purpose was very similar to that employed with patients – indicating a subjective preference in a paired-comparison format. The main ndings were: (1) directionality is preferred when the signal is located at 0° azimuth, (2) asymmetrical directional setting is not undesirable in an asymmetrical noise eld, and (3) there is no signi cant difference in subjective microphone preference in a simulated real-world environment.

Referencer

Banerjee, S. (2008). “Real-world hearing aid behaviour,” paper presented at the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ.

Brungart, D., Simpson, B., Ericson, M., and Scott, K. (2001). “Informational and energetic masking in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527-2538.

Cord, M., Surr, R., Walden, B., and Dyrlund, O. (2004). “Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 15, 353-364.

Cord, M., Surr, R., Walden, B., and Olson, L. (2002). “Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 13, 295-307.

Critchlow, D., and Fligner, M. (1991). “Paired comparison, triple comparison and ranking experiments as generalized linear models and their implementation on GLIM,” Psychometrika, 56, 517-533.

Hornsby, B., and Ricketts, T. (2007). “Directional bene t in the presence of speech and speech-like maskers,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 18, 5-16.

Kochkin, S. (2002b). “MarkeTrak VI: 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market,” Hear Rev. 9, 14-25,46.

Kochkin, S. (2005). “MarkeTrak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing aids in the digital age,” Hear J. 58, 30-37.

Leeuw, A., and Dreschler, W. (1991). “Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics,” Audiology 30, 330-344.

Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., and Sullivan, J. A. (1994). “Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1085-1099.

Ricketts, T. (2000). “Impact of noise source con guration on directional hearing aid bene t and performance,” Ear Hear. 21, 194-205.

Ricketts, T., and Mueller, H. (2000). “Predicting directional hearing aid bene t for individual listeners,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 11, 561-569.

Saunders, G., and Cienkowski, K. (2002). “A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 13, 38-49.

Wagener, K., Hansen, M., and Ludvigsen, C. (2008). ”Recording and classi cation of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 19, 348-370.

Walden, B., Surr, R., Cord, M., and Dyrlund, O. (2004). “Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening,” J. Am. Acad. Aud. 15, 365-394.

Yderligere filer

Publiceret

2009-12-15

Citation/Eksport

Banerjee, S. (2009). Laboratory evaluation of directional preference: Effect of background noise location and stimulus type. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 2, 513–522. Hentet fra https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2009-53

Nummer

Sektion

2009/4. Recent concepts in binaural cochlear-implant and hearing-aid processing