The Effect of Hearing Aid Noise Reduction on Listening Effort in Hearing-Impaired Adults

Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a noise-reduction (NR) algorithm on the listening effort hearing-impaired participants expend on a speech in noise task. Design: Twelve hearing-impaired listeners fitted with behind-the-ear hearing aids with a fast-acting modulation–based NR algorithm participated in this study. A dual-task paradigm was used to measure listening effort with and without the NR enabled in the hearing aid. The primary task was a sentence-in-noise task presented at fixed overall speech performance levels of 76% (moderate listening condition) and 50% (difficult listening condition) correct performance, and the secondary task was a visual-tracking test. Participants also completed measures of working memory (Reading Span test), and processing speed (Digit Symbol Substitution Test) ability. Results: Participants’ speech recognition in noise scores did not significantly change with the NR algorithm activated in the hearing aid in either listening condition. The NR algorithm significantly decreased listening effort, but only in the more difficult listening condition. Last, there was a tendency for participants with faster processing speeds to expend less listening effort with the NR algorithm when listening to speech in background noise in the difficult listening condition. Conclusions: The NR algorithm reduced the listening effort adults with hearing loss must expend to understand speech in noise.

[1]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[3]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[4]  Candace Bourland Hick,et al.  Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  J. F. Feuerstein,et al.  Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[6]  P. Baltes,et al.  Walking While Memorizing: Age-Related Differences in Compensatory Behavior , 2001, Psychological science.

[7]  Susan Kemper,et al.  The Effects of Aging and Dual Task Demands on Language Production , 2009, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[8]  H Levitt,et al.  A digital master hearing aid. , 1986, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  L. N. Johnson Pupil response. , 1989, The Western journal of medicine.

[10]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[11]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. , 2002, Psychology and aging.

[12]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. , 2009, Psychology and aging.

[13]  J. L. Miller,et al.  Articulation Rate and Its Variability in Spontaneous Speech: A Reanalysis and Some Implications , 1984, Phonetica.

[14]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Speed of processing in normal aging: effects of speech rate, linguistic structure, and processing time. , 1985, Journal of gerontology.

[15]  R. Bentler,et al.  Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[16]  Gurjit Singh,et al.  Effects of Age on Auditory and Cognitive Processing: Implications for Hearing Aid Fitting and Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[17]  J. Deutsch Perception and Communication , 1958, Nature.

[18]  Todd A Ricketts,et al.  Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[19]  Background IMPROVING THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE IN NOISE : FAST-ACTING SINGLE-MICROPHONE NOISE REDUCTION , 2010 .

[20]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  P F Seitz,et al.  Assessing the Cognitive Demands of Speech Listening for People with Hearing Losses , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[22]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[23]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 1. Patterns of benefit , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[24]  M. Daneman,et al.  How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[26]  A. Duquesnoy The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Kanae Nishi,et al.  Effects of Digital Noise Reduction on Speech Perception for Children with Hearing Loss , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[29]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[30]  Kilian Seeber,et al.  Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Measures and methods , 2013 .

[31]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Sources of age-related recognition difficulty for time-compressed speech. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[32]  G Keidser Selecting different amplification for different listening conditions. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[33]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Variability and uncertainty in masking by competing speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[35]  David Preves,et al.  Approaches to Noise Reduction in Analog, Digital, and Hybrid Hearing Aids , 1990 .

[36]  D A Fabry,et al.  Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[37]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[38]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[39]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[40]  D A Fabry,et al.  Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing-impaired subjects. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[41]  T. Lunner,et al.  Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[42]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[43]  A. Gutchess,et al.  Culture, Cognition, and Aging , 2015 .

[44]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[45]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Profile of auditory temporal processing in older listeners. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[46]  Monique Boymans,et al.  Field Trials Using a Digital Hearing Aid with Active Noise Reduction and Dual-Microphone Directionality: Estudios de campo utilizando un audifono digital con reduccion activa del ruido y micrófono de direccionalidad dual , 2000, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[47]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[48]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognition and hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[49]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss: Susceptibility to Hearing Aid Distortion , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[50]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  When cognition kicks in: working memory and speech understanding in noise. , 2010, Noise & health.

[51]  Karen A Doherty,et al.  Age-Related Changes in Listening Effort for Various Types of Masker Noises , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[52]  Zofia K Rybkowski,et al.  Evidence-based design , 2004, Pharmacy World and Science.

[53]  T. Salthouse A Theory of Cognitive Aging , 1985 .

[54]  W. Dreschler,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[55]  S. Kochkin MarkeTrak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer” The consumers' perspective , 2000 .

[56]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Aging and Speech-on-Speech Masking , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[57]  E. Pfeiffer A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Assessment of Organic Brain Deficit in Elderly Patients † , 1975, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[58]  M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. , 2002, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[59]  Jae Hee Lee,et al.  Auditory measures of selective and divided attention in young and older adults using single-talker competition. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[61]  L. Humes The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[62]  Justyn Pisa,et al.  Evidence-based design of a noise-management algorithm , 2010 .

[63]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone , 2001, Psychological science.

[64]  T. Salthouse,et al.  Divided attention abilities in young and old adults. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[65]  D. Downs Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. , 1982, Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders.

[66]  R H Margolis,et al.  Magnitude estimation of loudness. I: Application to hearing aid selection. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[67]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[68]  Sheila Moodie,et al.  The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[69]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[70]  M. Akeroyd Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[71]  Patrick Rabbitt Recognition: Memory for words correctly heard in noise , 1966 .

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

[73]  Todd Ricketts,et al.  Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[74]  J. Rönnberg Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: a framework and a model , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[75]  J. Dubno,et al.  Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[76]  O J Menzel Compression amplification in hearing aids. , 1966, Eye, ear, nose & throat monthly.

[77]  Nancy Vaughan,et al.  Sequencing versus nonsequencing working memory in understanding of rapid speech by older listeners. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[78]  T Ricketts,et al.  Impact of Compression and Hearing Aid Style on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2001, Ear and hearing.