Effect of Preferred Volume Setting on Speech Audibility in Different Hearing Aid Circuits

Abstract

This study compared preferred volume setting for linear peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) amplification and quantified speech audibility at the preferred volume setting for each amplification type. Ten listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were fitted monaurally with a behind-the-ear hearing aid programmed sequentially with WDRC, compression limiting, and linear peak clipping amplification. Speech was presented in quiet and in noise at a range of input levels. In each condition, the listener adjusted the volume for maximum clarity. Signal levels were measured using a probe microphone system. There was no significant difference in speech audibility between amplification strategies for any speech level regardless of the presence or absence of background noise. These results imply that the improved audibility advantage of WDRC over linear amplification demonstrated in controlled environments may not be maintained in situations where the hearing aid wearer controls the volume.

Abbreviations: AAI = Aided Audibility Index, AI = Articulation Index, ANOVA = analysis of variance, NAL-R = National Acoustic Laboratories-Revised, SIR = Speech Intelligibility Rating, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Keywords

Amplification - audibility - clarity - preferred volume

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. März 2022

• REFERENCES

• American National Standards Institute. (1995). Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. (ANSI S3.5-1995). New York: ANSI.
• Barker C, Dillon H. (1999). Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 20:127-139.
• Barlow N, Auslander M, Rines D, Stelmachowicz P. (1988). Probe-tube microphone measurements in hearing-impaired children and adults. Ear Hear 9:243-247.
• Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: objective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:808-819.
• Byrne D, Cotton S. (1987). Preferred listening levels of sensorineurally hearing-impaired listeners. Aust J Audiol 9:7-14.
• Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. (1995). The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854-1864.
• Cox RM. (1984). Relationship between aided preferred listening level and long-term listening range. Ear Hear 5:72-76.
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1991). Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday envinroments. Ear Hear 12:123-126.
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1992). Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear 13:131-141.
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1994). Prediction of hearing aid benefit: the role of preferred listening levels. Ear Hear 15:22-29.
• Cox RM, McDaniel R. (1989). Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 32:347-352.
• Dillon H. (1996). Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear 17:287-307.
• Dreschler WA. (1988). The effect of specific compression settings on phoneme identification in hearing-impaired subjects. Scand Audiol 17:35-43.
• Dreschler WA, Eberhardt D, Melk PW. (1984). The use of single-channel compression for improvement of speech intelligibility. Scand Audiol 13:231-236.
• Fletcher H, Galt RH. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. J Acoust Soc Am 22:89-151.
• French NR, Steinberg JC. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 19:90-119.
• Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A. (1985). Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids. Scand Audiol 14:109-111.
• Hawkins DB, Walden BE, Montgomery A, Prosek RA. (1987). Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 8:162-169.
• Hickson LMH. (1994). Compression amplification in hearing aids. Am J Audiol 3:51—65.
• Humes LE, Barlow NN, Garner CB, Wilson DL. (2000). Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43:879-892.
• Knebel SB, Bentler RA. (1998). Comparison of two digital hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:280-289.
• Kochkin S. (2000). MarkeTrak V: consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J 53:38-55.
• Kuk FK. (1990). Preferred insertion gain of hearing aids in listening and reading-aloud situations. J Speech Hear Res 33:520-529.
• Kuk FK, Harper T, Doubek K. (1994). Preferred real-ear insertion gain on a commercial hearing aid at different speech and noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol 5:99-109.
• Kuk FK, Lau C. (1996). Effect of hearing aid experience on preferred insertion gain selection. J Am Acad Audiol 7:274-281.
• Kuk FK, Ludvigsen C. (1999). Variables affecting the use of prescriptive formulae to fit modern nonlinear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10:458-465.
• Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Dobie RA, Haskell GB, Bratt GW, Shanks JE, Stelmachowicz P, Studebaker GA, Boysen AE, Donahue A, Canalis R, Fausti SA, Rappaport BZ. (2000). Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 284:1086-1813.
• Laurence RF, Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1983). A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. Br J Audiol 17:31-48.
• Leijon A, Eriksson-Mangold M, Bech-Karlsen A. (1984). Preferred hearing aid gain and bass-cut in relation to prescriptive fitting. Scand Audiol 13:157-161.
• Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Ringdahl A, Israelsson B. (1990). Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday use after prescriptive fitting. Ear Hear 11:299-305.
• Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1986). A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. Audiology 25:210-226.
• Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. (1995). Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 16:407-416.
• Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Dekok K. (2000). Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: comparison to prescriptive targets. J Am Acad Audiol 11:230-238.
• Souza PE, Bishop RD. (2000). Improving audibility with nonlinear amplification for listeners with high-frequency loss. J Am Acad Audiol 11:214-223.
• Souza PE, Turner CW (1996). Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. J Speech Hear Res 39:901-911
• Souza PE, Turner CW. (1998). Multichannel compression, temporal cues and audibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:315-326.
• Souza PE, Turner CW. (1999). Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12-20.
• Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Kalberer A, Creutz T. (1994). Situational Hearing Aid Response Profile Users Manual (SHARP, v. 2.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
• Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis DL, Hoover BE. (1998). A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131-138.
• Tyler RS, Kuk FK. (1989). The effects of “noise suppression” hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise. Ear Hear 10: 243-249.
• Valente M, Fabry DA, Potts LG, Sandlin RE. (1998). Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 9:342-360.
• Walden BE, Schuchman GI, Sedge RK. (1977). The reliability and validity of the comfort level method of setting hearing aid gain. J Speech Hear Disord 44:455-461.