Comparison of Relative Loudness Judgment in Children using Listening Devices with Typically Developing Children
Introduction Loudness perception is considered important for the perception of emotions, relative distance and stress patterns. However, certain digital hearing devices worn by those with hearing impairment may affect their loudness perception. This could happen in devices that have compression circuits to make loud sounds soft and soft sounds loud. These devices could hamper children from gaining knowledge about loudness of acoustical signals.
Objective To compare relative loudness judgment of children using listening devices with age-matched typically developing children.
Methods The relative loudness judgment of sounds created by day-to-day objects were evaluated on 60 children (20 normal-hearing, 20 hearing aid users, & 20 cochlear implant users), utilizing a standard group comparison design. Using a two-alternate forced-choice technique, the children were required to select picturized sound sources that were louder.
Results The majority of the participants obtained good scores and poorer scores were mainly obtained by children using cochlear implants. The cochlear implant users obtained significantly lower scores than the normal-hearing participants. However, the scores were not significantly different between the normal-hearing children and the hearing aid users as well as between the two groups with hearing impairment.
Conclusion Thus, despite loudness being altered by listening devices, children using non-linear hearing aids or cochlear implants are able to develop relative loudness judgment for acoustic stimuli. However, loudness growth for electrical stimuli needs to be studied.
Received: 17 June 2019
Accepted: 21 December 2019
24 April 2020 (online)
© 2020. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
- 1 Ashmead DH, LeRoy D, Odom RD. Perception of the relative distances of nearby sound sources. Percept Psychophys 1990; 47 (04) 326-331 DOI: 10.3758/BF03210871.
- 2 Strybel TZ, Perrott DR. Discrimination of relative distance in the auditory modality: the success and failure of the loudness discrimination hypothesis. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (01) 318-320 DOI: 10.1121/1.391064.
- 3 House D. On the perception of mood in speech: Implications for the hearing impaired. Phonum. 1990: 99-108
- 4 Schmidt J, Janse E, Scharenborg O. Perception of Emotion in Conversational Speech by Younger and Older Listeners. Front Psychol 2016; 7: 781 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00781.
- 5 Laukkanen A-M, Vilkman E, Alku P, Oksanen H. Physical variations related to stress and emotional state: a preliminary study. J Phonetics 1996; 24 (03) 313-335
- 6 Fry DB. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J Acoust Soc Am 1955; 27 (04) 765-768 DOI: 10.1121/1.1908022.
- 7 Fry DB. Experiments in the perception of stress. Lang Speech 1958; 1 (02) 126
- 8 Lieberman P. Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. J Acoust Soc Am 1960; 32 (04) 451-454 DOI: 10.1121/1.1908095.
- 9 Collins AA, Gescheider GA. The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (05) 2012-2021 DOI: 10.1121/1.397854.
- 10 Serpanos YC, Gravel JS. Assessing growth of loudness in children by cross-modality matching. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (04) 190-202
- 11 Dillon H. Hearing Aids. United States of America: Thieme; 2001
- 12 Musa-Shufani S, Walger M, von Wedel H, Meister H. Influence of dynamic compression on directional hearing in the horizontal plane. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (03) 279-285
- 13 Moore BC. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (02) 243-254
- 14 Zeng F-G, Galvin III JJ, Zhang C. Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Neuroreport 1998; 9 (08) 1845-1848
- 15 Zeng F-G, Galvin III JJ. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 60-74
- 16 James CJ, Skinner MW, Martin LF. et al. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (02) 157-174 DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000058107.64929.D6.
- 17 Vaerenberg B, Govaerts PJ, Stainsby T, Nopp P, Gault A, Gnansia D. A uniform graphical representation of intensity coding in current-generation cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (05) 533-543 DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000039.
- 18 Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE. Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (03) 230-241 DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000130795.66185.28.
- 19 Müller-Deile J, Kiefer J, Wyss J, Nicolai J, Battmer R. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study. Cochlear Implants Int 2008; 9 (01) 8-26 DOI: 10.1179/cim.2008.9.1.8.
- 20 Chatterjee M, Fu Q-J, Shannon RV. Effects of phase duration and electrode separation on loudness growth in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (03) 1637-1644 DOI: 10.1121/1.428448.
- 21 Pfingst BE, Miller AL, Morris DJ, Zwolan TA, Spelman FA, Clopton BM. Effects of electrical current configuration on stimulus detection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 127-131
- 22 Smith DW, Finley CC. Effects of electrode configuration on psychophysical strength-duration functions for single biphasic electrical stimuli in cats. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102 (04) 2228-2237 DOI: 10.1121/1.419636.
- 23 Wolfe J, Schafer EC, John A, Hudson M. The effect of front-end processing on cochlear implant performance of children. Otol Neurotol 2011; 32 (04) 533-538 DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318210b6ec.
- 24 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Loiselle LH. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 260-275 DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180312607.
- 25 James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, Macfarlane D. Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (01) 49S-58S
- 26 Palmer C, Valente M, Powers T, Mueller H. Eds. The impact of restoring normal loudness growth on speech understanding as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and input level. NIH/VA Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference, Bethesda, MD. 1997
- 27 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends Amplif 1997; 2 (01) 6-35 DOI: 10.1177/108471389700200102.
- 28 Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 1996; 25 (03) 153-160
- 29 Raven J. Raven progressive matrices. Handbook of nonverbal assessment. Springer; 2003: 223-237
- 30 Bzoch KR, League R. Receptive-expressive emergent language scale: Pro-ed. 1991
- 31 All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. Ethical guidelines for Bio-behavioural research involving human subjects. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2009
- 32 Tagliaferri B. Paradigm. Perception Research Systems. Inc. www.perceptionresearchsystems.com 2005
- 33 ANSI/ASA S3.1–1999. American national standard maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric rooms.: Standards Secretariate, Acoustical Society of America. ; R2013.
- 34 Shi LF, Doherty KA, Zwislockit JJ. Aided loudness growth and satisfaction with everyday loudness perception in compression hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (03) 206-219
- 35 Schmidt J, Herzog D, Scharenborg O, Janse E. Do Hearing Aids Improve Affect Perception?. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016; 894: 47-55 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25474-6_6.
- 36 Nikakhlagh S, Saki N, Karimi M, Mirahmadi S, Rostami MR. Evaluation of loudness perception performance in cochlear implant users. Biomed Pharmacol J 2015; ••• DOI: 10.13005/bpj/561.
- 37 Blamey PJ. Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (02) 77-98