Development and Preliminary Verification of a Mandarin-Based Hearing-Aid Fitting Strategy

Objective The purpose of this study was to design and to verify a new hearing-aid fitting strategy (Aescu HRL-1) based on the acoustic features of Mandarin. The subjective and objective outcomes were compared to those fitted with NAL-NL1 (National Acoustic Laboratory Non-Linear, version1) in Mandarin-speaking hearing-aid users. Design Fifteen subjects with sensorineural hearing loss participated in this preliminary study. Each subject wore a pair of four-channel hearing aids fitted with the Aescu HRL-1 and NAL-NL1 prescriptions alternatively for 1 month. Objective and subjective tests including the Mandarin Monosyllable Recognition Test (MMRT), Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test (MHINT), International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), and a sound-quality questionnaire were used to evaluate the performance of the two prescriptions. Results The mean MMRT scores were 79.9% and 81.1% for NAL-NL1 and Aescu HRL-1 respectively. They are not statistically different. The corresponding MHINT signal-to-noise ratios were 0.87 and 0.85 dB, also, no significant difference was found between these two strategies. However, in subjective questionnaires, overall, the sound-quality and IOI-HA scores were higher for Aescu HRL-1. Conclusions The speech recognition performance based on Aescu HRL-1 is as good as that of NAL-NL1 for Mandarin-speaking hearing-aid users. Moreover, the subjects generally responded that Aescu HRL-1 provides a more natural, richer, and better sound quality than does NAL-NL1.

[1]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[2]  G Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  J A McCullough,et al.  Speech-spectrum analysis of Mandarin: implications for hearing-aid fittings in a multi-ethnic society. , 1993, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Yôiti Suzuki,et al.  Equal-loudness-level contours for pure tones. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  B. Moore,et al.  A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss , 2004, Hearing Research.

[6]  Lutheran Church,et al.  A Brief History of , 2008 .

[7]  G. Keidser,et al.  The NAL-NL2 Prescription Procedure , 2011, Audiology research.

[8]  A. Geers,et al.  Factors Predictive of the Development of Literacy in Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Adolescents. , 1989 .

[9]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Shuenn-Tsong Young,et al.  Development of a Mandarin Monosyllable Recognition Test , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[11]  T Houtgast,et al.  Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[13]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Ross J. Roeser,et al.  Comprar Audiology, 3-Volume Set Diagnosis, Treatment and Practice Management | Holly Hosford-Dunn | 9783131361226 | Thieme , 2008 .

[15]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. , 1993, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF Method for Fitting Hearing Aids With Multichannel Amplitude Compression , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[17]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality , 2002, Trends in amplification.

[18]  Sha Liu,et al.  Development of the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test (MHINT) , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Using Loudness Data for Hearing Aid Selection: The IHAFF Approach , 1995 .

[20]  Kashi Wali,et al.  Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology , 2000 .

[21]  H Dillon.  Tutorial Compression? Yes, But for Low or High Frequencies, for Low or High Intensities, and with What Response Times? , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 Hearing Aid Fitting Methods , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Yôiti Suzuki,et al.  Comparison of loudness functions suitable for drawing equal-loudness-level contours , 2003 .

[24]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version: El Inventario International de Resultados para Auxiliares Auditivos (IOI-HA): propiedades psicometricas de la version en ingles , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[25]  Susan D Scollie,et al.  Evaluation of Electroacoustic Test Signals I: Comparison with Amplified Speech , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Hawkins Db,et al.  Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. , 1993 .

[27]  G Keidser,et al.  Comparing Loudness Normalization (IHAFF) with Speech Intelligibility Maximization (NAL-NL1) when Implemented in a Two-Channel Device , 2001, Ear and hearing.