The Impact of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Experience on Sound Quality Judgments

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this experiment was to quantify potential differences in sound quality judgments from individuals with normal hearing, hearing loss but no hearing aid experience, and hearing loss and hearing aid experience. Normally hearing subjects (15), subjects with hearing loss but no hearing aid experience (15), and subjects with binaural hearing aid experience (15) rated the sound quality (0 to 100%) of continuous discourse recordings made with three binaural sets of hearing aids. The hearing aids represent a range of coherence function values from perfect coherence (assumed excellent sound quality) to poor coherence (assumed poor sound quality) with two input levels (70 and 90 dB SPL). The normally hearing and hearing-impaired group with no hearing aid experience revealed identical sound quality preferences at the 90 dB SPL input level that were consistent with the physical measure of sound quality. These two groups did not show a particular preference for either the soft or loud input levels, whereas the experienced hearing aid users rated sound quality significantly higher for the loud input level regardless of type of hearing aid and sound quality as defined by the physical measurement. These results should affect the use of experienced users in the evaluation of the sound quality of hearing aid circuitry for development purposes and reliance on individual sound quality judgments when trying to fit previous users with new hearing aid circuitry.

Sound quality - adaptation - hearing aid experience

REFERENCES

• 1 Gabrielsson A, Hagerman B, Berg C, Ovegard A, Anggard L. Clinical assessment of perceived sound quality in hearing aids. Report Technical Abstract 98, Department of Technology Audiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm 1980
• 2 Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A. Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids.  Scand Audiol . 1985;  14 109-111
• 3 Preves D, Newton J. The headroom problem and hearing aid performance.  Hear J . 1989;  42 19-26
• 4 Palmer C, Killion M, Wilber L, Ballad W. Comparison of two hearing aid receiver-amplifier combinations using sound quality judgments.  Ear Hear . 1995;  16 587-597
• 5 Agnew J. Hearing instrument distortion: what does it mean for the listener?.  Hear Inst . 1988;  39 10-20
• 6 American National Standards Institute. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics ANSI S3.22- 1996. New York: ANSI; 1996
• 7 Peterson A PG. Intermodulation distortion.  Gen Radio Exp . 1951;  15 1-8
• 8 Burnett E, Corlis E, Nedzelnitsky V. Research problems in coupler and in situ measurements on hearing aids. In: Studebaker G, Bess F, eds. Vanderbilt Report Upper Darby, PA: York Press 1982: 71
• 9 Carter G, Knapp C, Nuttall A. Estimation of the magnitude-squared coherence function via overlapped fast Fourier transform processing.  IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust . 1973;  21 337-344
• 10 Kates J. On the use of coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  91 2236-2244
• 11 Kates J, Kozma-Spytek L. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1994;  95 3586-3594
• 12 Preves D. Expressing hearing aid noise and distortion with coherence measurements.  ASHA . 1990;  32 56-59
• 13 Chial M, Daniel S. Hearing aid quality judgments by normal and dysacusic listeners. Paper presented at the annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1977
• 14 Harris R, Goldstein D. Hearing aid quality judgments by magnitude estimation. Paper presented at the annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1980
• 15 Punch J. Quality judgments of hearing aid-processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners.  J Am Audio Soc . 1978;  3 179-188
• 16 Punch J, Beck L. Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided sound quality.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1980;  45 325-355
• 17 Crain T. The effect of peak clipping on the speech recognition threshold. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, 1992
• 18 Lawson G D, Chial M R. Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1982;  72 1781-1787
• 19 Nixon G. Higher fidelity in sound transmission and reproduction.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1945;  17 132-135
• 20 Ricketts T, Bentler R. Comparison of two digitally programmable hearing aids.  J Acad Audio . 1992;  3 101-112
• 21 Nabelek A., Tucker F, Letowski T. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1991;  34 679-685
• 22 American National Standards Institute. Specifications for Audiometers ANSI S3.6-1989. New York: ANSI; 1989
• 23 American National Standards Institute. Methods for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometry ANSI S3.21-1978. New York: ANSI; 1978
• 24 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Guidelines for screening hearing impairment and middle ear disorders. ASHA .  1990;  17-24 (17-24)
• 25 American National Standards Institute. Testing Hearing Aids with Broadband Noise Signals ANSI S3.42-1992. New York: ANSI; 1992
• 26 Cox R, McDaniel D. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1989;  32 347-352
• 27 Cox R, McDaniel D. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1984;  76 758-766
• 28 Palmer C, Wilber L, Killion M, Canter J. Influence of external ear characteristics on intelligibility and quality judgments. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Conference, Atlanta, November, 1991. ASHA 33:161(Abstr)
• 29 Berger K. Predicted versus actual gain usage by binaural hearing aid wearers.  Hear J . 1988;  10 20-22
• 30 Byrne D, Parkinson A. Reliability and sensitivity of intelligibility and pleasantness judgments of amplified speech.  Aust J Audiol . 1987;  9 77-86