Environmental noise reduction configuration: Effects on preferences, satisfaction, and speech understanding Environmental noise reduction configuration: Effects on preferences, satisfaction, and speech understanding

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 48, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 853-867

  Zakis, Justin A ^a   Hau, Jutta ^a   Blamey, Peter J ^b,c  

^a Dynamic Hearing Pty Ltd   (Australia)

^b Australia Hears Pty Ltd   (Australia)

^c BIONIC EAR INSTITUTE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Algorithm; Configuration; Fitting; Hearing aid; Noise reduction

Indexed keywords

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 73649086233     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992020903131117     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alcántara, J.I., Moore, B.C.J., Kühnel, V. & Launer, S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34-42.
2. American National Standards Institute. 1997. Methods for the calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3. Bentler, R. & Chiou, L.-K. 2006. Digital noise reduction: An overview. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 67-82.
4. Bentler, R., Wu, Y.H., Kettel, J. & Hurtig, R. 2008. Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol, 47(8), 447-1160
5. Blamey, P., Fiket, H. & Steele, B. 2006. Improving speech intelligibility in background noise with an adaptive directional microphone. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(7), 519-530.
6. Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L. & Hnath, T. 1985. A sentence test of speech perception: Reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning (Internal report, RCI 10). New York: City University of New York.
7. Boymans, M. & Dreschler, W.A. 2000. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality. Audiology, 39, 260-268.
8. Chung, K. 2004. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif, 8(3), 83-124.
9. Dillon, H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Hear J, 52, 10-17.
10. Dillon, H. 2001. Advanced signal processing schemes for hearing aids. In: Hearing Aids. Edition 1. Sydney: Boomerang, pp. 196-198.
11. Edwards, B.W., Hou, Z., Struck, C.J. & Dharan, P. 1998. Signal processing algorithms for a new, software-based, digital hearing device. Hear J, 51, 44-52.
12. Fabry, D.A., Leek, M.R., Walden, B.E. & Cord, M.A. 1993. Do adaptive frequency response (AFR) hearing aids reduce upward spread of masking? J Rehab Res Devel, 30(3), 318-325.
13. Freed, D.J. & Soli, S.D. 2006. An objective procedure for evaluation of adaptive antifeedback algorithms in hearing aids. Ear Hear, 27(4), 382-398.
14. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC. 1983. Hearing aids, Part 2: Hearing aids with automatic gain control circuits. IEC-60118-60122 International Electrotechnical Commission.
15. Keidser, G. 1995. Long-term spectra of a range of real-life noisy environments. The Australian Journal of Audiology, 17(1), 1-8.
16. Keidser, G., Ching, T., Dillon, H., Agung, K., Brew, C., et al. 2002. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) CDs of speech and noise for hearing aid evaluation: Normative data and potential applications. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 24(1), 16-35.
17. Mueller, H.G., Weber, J. & Hornsby, B.W.Y 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 83-93.
18. Nilsson, M., Soli, S.D. & Sullivan, J.A. 1994. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085-1099.
19. Nordrum, S., Erler, S., Garstecki, D. & Dhar, S. 2006. Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms. American J Audiol, 15, 81-91.
20. Pearsons, K.S., Bennett, R.L. & Fidell, S. 1977. Speech levels in various environments (EPA-600/1-77-025). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
21. Ricketts, T.A. & Hornsby, B.W.Y. 2005. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing 'Digital Noise Reduction'. J Am Acad Audiol, 16(5), 270-277.
22. Van Dijkhuizen, J.N., Festen, J.M. & Plomp, R. 1991. The effect of frequency- selective attenuation on the speech reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 90, 885-894.
23. Wise, C.L. & Zakis, J.A. 2008. Effects of expansion algorithms on speech reception thresholds. J Am Acad Audiol, 19(2), 147-157.
24. Yuen, K. C. P., Kam, A. C. S. & Lau, P. S. H. 2006. Comparative performance of an adaptive directional microphone system and a multichannel noise reduction system. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 241-252.
25. Zakis, J.A., Dillon, H. & McDermott, H.J. 2007. The design and evaluation of a hearing aid with trainable amplification parameters. Ear Hear, 28(6), 812-830.
26. Zakis, J.A. & Wise, C. 2007. The acoustic and perceptual effects of two noise-suppression algorithms. J Acoust Soc Am, 121(1), 433-1141