Successful and unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification: Differences and similarities in binaural performance

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 613-627

  Köbler, Susanne ^a,b   Lindblad, Ann Cathrine ^a   Olofsson, Åke ^a   Hagerman, Björn ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bilateral hearing aids; Binaural hearing; Dichotic listening; Interhemispheric transfer; Signal analysis performance; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE CONTROL STUDY; DICHOTIC LISTENING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; DICHOTIC LISTENING TESTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT SELECTION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 77955647230     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2010.481774     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. ANSI (1999). Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. American National Standards Institute, S3.1-1999, New York, USA.
2. Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R. & Kidd G. Jr. 2005. The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 117(4 Pt 1), 2169-2180
3. Arlinger S., Gatehouse S., Bentler R.A., Byrne D., Cox R.M. et al. 1996. Report of the Eriksholm workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatization. Ear Hear, 17(3), 87S-98S.
4. Arlinger S. 2003. Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss: A review. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 22, S17-20.
5. Arlinger S., Brorsson B., Lagerbring C., Leijon A., Rosenhall U. et al. 2003. Hearing aids for adults: Benefi ts and costs. Stockholm, The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care.
6. Arsenault M.D. & Punch J.L. 1999 Nonsense-syllable recognition in noise using monaural and binaural listening strategies. J Acoust Soc Am, 105(3), 1821-1830
7. Baddeley A. 2003. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci, 4(10), 829-839
8. Bocca E. & Antonelli A.R. 1976. Masking level difference: Another tool for evaluation of peripheral and cortical defects. Audiology, 15(6), 480-487.
9. Brooks D.N. & Bulmer D. 1981. Survey of binaural hearing aid users. Ear Hear, 2(5), 220-224
10. Byrne D. & Cotton S. 1988. Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories ' new hearing aid selection procedure. J Speech Hear Res, 31(2), 178-186
11. Carhart R., Tillman T.W. & Greetis E.S. 1969. Release from multiple maskers: Effects of interaural time disparities. J Acoust Soc Am, 45(2), 411-418
12. Carter A.S., Noe C.M. & Wilson R.H. 2001. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 12(5), 261-272
13. Chmiel R., Jerger J., Murphy E., Pirozzolo F. & Tooley-Young C. 1997. Unsuccessful use of binaural amplifi cation by an elderly person. J Am Acad Audiol, 8(1), 1-10.
14. Chung S.M. & Stephens S.D. 1986. Factors infl uencing binaural hearing aid use. Br J Audiol, 20(2), 129-140
15. Clarke J.M., Lufkin R.B. & Zaidel E. 1993. Corpus callosum morphometry and dichotic listening performance: Individual differences in functional interhemispheric inhibition? Neuropsychologia, 31(6), 547-557
16. Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. Sydney: Thieme.
17. Dillon H., Birtles G. & Lovegrove R. 1999. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid users questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol, 10(2), 67-79.
18. Dreschler W.A. & Plomp R. 1985. Relations between psychophysical data and speech-perception for hearing-impaired subjects. 2. J Acoust Soc Am, 78(4), 1261-1270.
19. Dreschler W.A., Verschuure H., Ludvigsen C. & Westermann S. 2001. ICRA noises: Artifi cial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International Collegium for Rehabilitative Audiology. Audiology, 40(3), 148-157
20. Festen J.M. & Plomp R. 1986. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 79(2), 465-471
21. Galambos R. & Makeig S. 1992. Physiological studies of central masking in man. II: Tonepip SSRs and the masking level difference. J Acoust Soc Am, 92(5), 2691-2697
22. Gatehouse S. & Akeroyd M. 2006. Two-eared listening in dynamic situations. Int J Audiol, 45 Suppl., 120-124
23. Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43(2), 85-99.
24. Giraud A.L., Garnier S., Micheyl C., Lina G., Chays A. et al. 1997. Auditory efferents involved in speech-in-noise intelligibility. Neuroreport, 8(7), 1779-1783
25. Givens G.D., Arnold T. & Hume W.G. 1998. Auditory processing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older adults. Percept Mot Skills, 86(3), 795-801.
26. Glasberg B.R. & Moore B.C.J. 1989. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol, 1-25.
27. Goldstein D.P. & Stephens S.D. 1975. Masking level difference: A measure of auditory processing capability. Audiology, 14(4), 354-367
28. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11(2), 79-87.
29. Hagerman B. 1984. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol, 13(1), 57-63.
30. Hagerman B. 2002. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol, 41(6), 321-329
31. Hall J.W. & Harvey A.D. 1985. Diotic loudness summation in normal and impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 445-448
32. Hawkins D.B., Prosek R.A., Walden B.E., Montgomery A.A. 1987. Binaural loudness summation in the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 30(1), 37-43.
33. Hickok G. & Poeppel D. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92(1-2), 67-99.
34. Hirsh I.J. 1948. The infl uence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J Acoust Soc Am, 20(4), 536-544.
35. Humes L.E. 2005. Do ' auditory processing ' tests measure auditory processing in the elderly? Ear Hear, 26(2), 109-119
36. Humes L.E. & Lee L.W. 1994. Evaluating a speech-reception threshold-model for hearing-impaired listeners: Reply. J Acoust Soc Am, 96(1), 588-589
37. H ä llgren M., Johansson M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 1998. Dichotic speech tests. Scand Audiol Suppl, 4935-4939
38. H ä llgren M., Larsby B., Lyxell B. & Arlinger S. 2005. Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 44(10), 574-583
39. International Standards Organization. 2004. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment, Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones (ISO 389-8:2004).
40. Jerger J., Brown D. & Smith S. 1984. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch Otolaryngol, 110(5), 290-296
41. Jerger J., Chmiel R., Allen J. & Wilson A. 1994. Effects of age and gender on dichotic sentence identifi cation. Ear Hear, 15(4), 274-286
42. Jerger J. & Jordan C. 1992. Age-related asymmetry on a cued-listening task. Ear Hear, 13(4), 272-277
43. Johansson M.S. & Arlinger S.D. 2002. Binaural masking level difference for speech signals in noise. Int J Audiol, 41(5), 279-284
44. Jordan O., Greisen O. & Bentzen O. 1967. Treatment with binaural hearing aids. A follow-up investigation of 1147 cases. Arch Otolaryngol, 85(3), 319-326
45. Kim S., Frisina R.D. & Frisina D.R. 2006. Effects of age on speech understanding in normal hearing listeners: Relationship between the auditory efferent system and speech intelligibility in noise. Speech Commun, 48(7), 855-862.
46. Kimura D. 1961. Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory-perception. Can J Psychol, 15(3), 156-165.
47. Kumar U.A. & Vanaja C.S. 2004. Functioning of olivocochlear bundle and speech perception in noise. Ear Hear, 25(2), 142-146
48. Köbler S. Rosenhall U. Horizontal localization and speech intelligibility with bilateral and unilateral hearing aid amplifi cation, Int J Audiol, 2002, 41, 7, 395-400
49. K ö bler S., Rosenhall U. & Hansson H. 2001. Bilateral hearing aids: Effects and consequences from a user perspective. Scand Audiol, 30(4), 223-235
50. Levitt H. & Rabiner L.R. 1967. Binaural release from masking for speech and gain in intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 42(3), 601-608
51. Licklider J.C.R. 1948. The infl uence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 20(2), 150-159.
52. Lindblad A.C. & Hagerman B. 1999. Hearing tests for selection of sonar operators. Acustica, 85(6), 870-876.
53. Lunner T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42 Suppl 1, S49-58.
54. Marks L.E. 1978. Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 64(1), 107-113
55. McKenzie A.R. & Rice C.G. 1990. Binaural hearing aids for high-frequency hearing loss. Br J Audiol, 24(5), 329-334
56. Moore B.C. 1996. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear, 17(2), 133-161
57. Moore B.C. 2003. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London: Academic Press.
58. Mukari S.Z., Keith R.W., Tharpe A.M. & Johnson C.D. 2006. Development and standardization of single and double dichotic digit tests in the Malay language. Int J Audiol, 45(6), 344-352
59. Neuman A. 1996. Late-onset auditory deprivation: A review of past research and an assessment of future research needs. Ear Hear, 17(3), 3S-13S.
60. Noble W. 2006. Bilateral hearing aids: A review of self-reports of benefi t in comparison with unilateral fi tting. Int J Audiol, 45 Suppl. 63-71.
61. Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2004. Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap. Int J Audiol, 43(2), 100-114
62. Noble W. & Gatehouse S. 2006. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fi tting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 45(3), 172-181
63. Noffsinger D., Martinez C.D. & Wilson R.H. 1994. Dichotic listening to speech: Background and preliminary data for digits, sentences, and nonsense syllables. J Am Acad Audiol, 5(4), 248-254
64. Olsen W.O. & Noffsinger D. 1976. Masking level differences for cochlear and brain stem lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 85(6 Pt. 1), 820-825
65. Philibert B., Collet L., Vesson J-F. & Veuillet E. Auditory rehabilitation ffects on speech lateralization in hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol, 123, 172-175.
66. Pichora-Fuller M.K., Schneider B.A. & Daneman M. 1995. How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97(1), 593-608.
67. Plomp R. 1986. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res, 29(2), 146-154.
68. Roup C.M., Wiley T.L. & Wilson R.H. 2006. Dichotic word recognition in young and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(4), 230-40; quiz 297-298
69. Shinn J.B., Baran J.A., Moncrieff D.W. & Musiek F.E. 2005. Differential attention effects on dichotic listening. J Am Acad Audiol, 16(4), 205-218
70. Smeds K. 2004. Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by fi rst-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear, 25(2), 159-172
71. Smeds K., Keidser G., Zakis J., Dillon H., Leijon A. et al. 2006. Preferred overall loudness. II: Listening through hearing aids in fi eld and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol, 45(1), 12-25.
72. Sommers M.S. 1996. The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. Psychol Aging, 11(2), 333-341
73. Stephens S.D., Callaghan D.E., Hogan S., Meredith R., Rayment A. et al. 1991. Acceptability of binaural hearing aids: A cross-over study. J R Soc Med, 84(5), 267-269
74. Studebaker G.A. 1985. A 'rationalized' arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28(3), 455-462
75. Thai-Van H., Philibert B., Veuillet E. & Collet L. 2009. Assessment of auditory plasticity using psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measurements. Audiol Med, 7, 55-66
76. Walden T.C. & Walden B.E. 2005. Unilateral versus bilateral amplifi cation for adults with impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 16(8), 574-584
77. Van den Bogaert T., Klasen T.J., Moonen M., Van Deun L. & Wouters J. 2006. Horizontal localization with bilateral hearing aids: Without is better than with. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(1), 515-526
78. Westerhausen R., Woerner W., Kreuder F., Schweiger E., Hugdahl K. et al. 2006. The role of the corpus callosum in dichotic listening: A combined morphological and diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuropsychology, 20(3), 272-279
79. Whilby S., Florentine M., Wagne E. & Marozeau J. 2006. Monaural and binaural loudness of 5-and 200-ms tones in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(6), 3931-3939
80. Wilson R.H., Zizz C.A. & Sperry J.L. 1994. Masking-level difference for spondaic words in 2000-msec bursts of broadband noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 5(4), 236-242
81. Wingfi eld A. 1996. Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory. J Am Acad Audiol, 7(3), 175-182
82. Wong W.Y. & Stapells D.R. 2004. Brain stem and cortical mechanisms underlying the binaural masking level difference in humans: An auditory steady-state response study. Ear Hear, 25(1), 57-67.
83. Zurek P.M. & Delhorne L.A. 1987. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am, 82(5), 1548-1559.