Full Time Directional versus User Selectable Microphone Modes in Hearing Aids

Objective The purpose of this experiment was to systematically examine hearing aid benefit as measured by speech recognition and self-assessment methods across omnidirectional and directional hearing aid modes. These data were used to compare directional benefit as measured by speech recognition in the laboratory to hearing aid wearer's perceptions of benefit in everyday environments across full-time directional, full-time omnidirectional, and user selectable directional fittings. Identification of possible listening situations that resulted in different self reported hearing aid benefit as a function of microphone type was a secondary objective of this experiment. Design Fifteen adults with symmetrical, sloping sensorineural hearing loss were fitted bilaterally with in-the-ear (ITE) directional hearing aids. Measures of hearing aid benefit included the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB), the Connected Sentence Test (CST), the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and a daily use log. Additionally, two new subscales were developed for administration with the PHAB. These subscales were developed to specifically address situations in which directional hearing aids may provide different degrees of benefit than omnidirectional hearing aids. Participants completed these measures in three conditions: omnidirectional only (O), directional only with low-frequency gain compensation (D), and user-selectable directional/omnidirectional (DO). Results Results from the speech intelligibility in noise testing indicated significantly more hearing aid benefit in directional modes than omnidirectional. PHAB results indicated more benefit on the background noise subscale (BN) in the DO condition than in the O condition; however, this directional advantage was not present for the D condition. Although the reliability of the newly proposed subscales is as yet unknown, the data were interpreted as revealing a directional advantage in situations where the signal of interest was in front of the participant and a directional disadvantage in situations where the signal of interest was behind the listener or localization was required. Conclusions Laboratory directional benefit is reflected in self-assessment measures that focus on listening in noise when the sound source of interest is in front of the listener. The use of a directional hearing aid mode; however, may have either a positive, a neutral, or a negative impact on hearing aid benefit measured in noisy situations, depending on the specific listening situation.

[1]  Sigfrid D. Soli,et al.  Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds , 1992 .

[2]  R C Seewald,et al.  Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995 .

[4]  T Ricketts,et al.  Directivity Quantification in Hearing Aids: Fitting and Measurement Effects , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[5]  T Ricketts,et al.  Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[6]  H. Dillon,et al.  Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  T W Fortune Real-ear polar patterns and aided directional sensitivity. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  Mead C. Killion,et al.  The case of the missing dots: Al and SNR loss , 1998 .

[9]  C A Sammeth,et al.  Field trial evaluations of a switched directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[10]  Paula P. Henry,et al.  Impact of Compression and Hearing Aid Style on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[11]  M Valente,et al.  Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  M Valente,et al.  Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[13]  Mary T Cord,et al.  Influence of environmental factors on hearing aid microphone preference. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[14]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[15]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[16]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  R K Surr,et al.  Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[19]  S. Gatehouse Self-Report Outcome Measures for Adult Hearing Aid Services: Some Uses, Users, and Options , 2001, Trends in amplification.

[20]  Stuart Gatehouse,et al.  Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and Validation of a Client-centered Outcome Measure for Hearing Aid Services , 1999 .

[21]  R M Cox,et al.  Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. , 1991, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  C Ludvigsen,et al.  Effect of hearing aids with directional microphones in different acoustic environments. , 1978, Scandinavian audiology.

[23]  Mary T Cord,et al.  Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[24]  R M Cox,et al.  Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[25]  G. Moushegian,et al.  Frequency-following response: effects of interaural time and intensity differences. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[26]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[27]  Todd A. Ricketts,et al.  Low-Frequency Gain Compensation in Directional Hearing Aids , 2002 .

[28]  T Ricketts,et al.  The Impact of Head Angle on Monaural and Binaural Performance with Directional and Omnidirectional Hearing Aids , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[29]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[30]  T Ricketts,et al.  Impact of Noise Source Configuration on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2000, Ear and hearing.