Can individualised acoustical transforms in hearing aids improve perceived sound quality?

Authors

  • Søren Laugesen Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Niels Søgaard Jensen Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Filip Marchman Rønne Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark
  • Julie Hefting Pedersen Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark

Abstract

This paper presents an experiment which aimed to clarify whether benefits in terms of perceived sound quality can be obtained from fitting hearing aids according to individualised acoustical transforms instead of average transforms. Eighteen normal-hearing test subjects participated, and hearing-aid sound processing with various degrees of individualisation was simulated and applied to five different sound samples. Stimuli were presented over insert phones and evaluated in an A/B test paradigm. Data were analysed with the Bradley-Terry-Luce model. The key result is that hearing aids individualised according to a real-ear insertion gain (REIG) target were preferred over hearing aids individualised according to a real-ear aided response (REAR) target.

References

Aazh, H., Moore, B.C., and Prasher, D. (2012). “Real ear measurement methods for open fit hearing aids: Modified pressure concurrent equalization (MPCE) versus modified pressure stored equalization (MPSE),” Int. J. Audiol., 51, 103-107.

Abrams, H.B., Chisolm, T.H., McManus, M., and McArdle, R. (2012). “Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: Comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 23, 768-778.

Bradley, R.A. and Terry, M.E. (1952). “Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons,” Biometrika, 39, 324-345.

Bramsløw, L. (2010). “Preferred signal path delay and high-pass cut-off in open fittings,” Int. J. Audiol., 49, 634-644.

Dillon, H. (2012). Hearing Aids. 2nd ed., Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme.

Dillon, H. and Keidser G. (2003). “Is probe-mic measurement of HA gain-frequency response best practice?,” Hear. J., 56, 28-30.

Humes, L.E. (2012). “Verification and validation: The chasm between protocol and practice,” Hear. J., 65, 8-10.

Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.

Moore, B.C.J. and Tan, C.-T. (2003). “Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 114, 408-419.

Mueller, H.G. (2014). “20Q: Real-ear probe-microphone measures – 30 years of progress?” Audiology Online, article 12410.

Mueller, H.G. and Picou, E.M. (2010). “Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures,” Hear. J., 63, 27-28.

Nelson, S.R. (2013). “The impact of using real ear measures to calculate prescriptive targets on hearing aid follow-up visits,” Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/pacs_capstones/669/

Saunders, G.H. and Morgan, D.E. (2003). “Impact on hearing aid targets of measuring thresholds in dB HL versus dB SPL,” Int. J. Audiol., 42, 319-326.

Schärer, Z. and Lindau, A. (2009). “Evaluation of equalization methods for binaural signals,” Proc. 126th Audio Engineering Society Convention, 1, 15-31.

Seewald, R., Moodie, S., Scollie, S., and Bagatto, M. (2005). “The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: Historical perspective and current issues,” Trends Ampl., 9, 145-157.

van Buuren, R.A., Festen, J.M., and Houtgast, T. (1996). “Peaks in the frequency response of hearing aids: Evaluation of the effects on speech intelligibility and sound quality,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., 39, 239-250.

Wickelmaier, F. and Schmid, C. (2004). “A Matlab function to estimate choice model pa-rameters from paired-comparison data,” Behav. Res. Meth. Instr. Comp., 36, 29-40.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-15

How to Cite

Laugesen, S., Jensen, N. S., Rønne, F. M., & Pedersen, J. H. (2015). Can individualised acoustical transforms in hearing aids improve perceived sound quality?. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 5, 245–252. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2015-28

Issue

Vol. 5 (2015): Individual Hearing Loss - Characterization, modelling, compensation strategies

Section

2015/4. Compensation strategies for hearing rehabilitation with hearing aids

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.