Acceptable noise level (ANL) with Danish and non-semantic speech materials in adult hearing-aid users

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 51, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 678-688

  Olsen, Steen Østergaard ^a,d   Lantz, Johannes ^b,d   Nielsen, Lars Holme ^a   Brännström, K Jonas ^b,c,d  

^a Mental Health Center Glostrup   (Denmark)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d Network for Joint Hearing Research in the Oresunds Region   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Acceptable noise level; Danish; Hearing impairment; International speech test signal; ISTS; Repeatability; Test retest

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMANTICS; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMANTICS; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84864860347     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.692822     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adams E.M., Gordon-Hickey S., Moore R.E. & Morlas H. 2010. Effects of reverberation on acceptable noise level measurements in younger and older adults. Int J Audiol, 9, 832-8.
2. Altman D.G. 1991. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall.
3. Andersen J.R. 1983. SamsøRundt. Tranebjerg, Denmark: Flemming Andersens Bookstore.
4. Beaton D.E., Boers M. & Wells G.A. 2002. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): A literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol, 14, 109-114. (Pubitemid 34185291)
5. Bilger R.C., Nuetzel J.M., Rabinowitz W.M. & Rzeczkowski C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32-48. (Pubitemid 14135538)
6. Bland J.M. & Altman D.G. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 327, 307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)
7. Brännström K.J., Lantz J., Nielsen L.H. & Olsen S. Oø. 2012. Acceptable noise level with Danish, Swedish and non-semantic speech materials. Int J Audiol, 51, 146-156.
8. Brännström J. & Wennerström I. 2010. Hearing aid fitting outcome: Clinical application and psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). J Am Acad Audiol, 21, 512-521.
9. Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K. et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108-2120. (Pubitemid 24311638)
10. Cook J.A. & Hawkins D.B. 2007. Outcome measurement for patients receiving hearing aid services. Laryngoscope, 117, 610-613. (Pubitemid 46559034)
11. Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 2002. The international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA): Psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol, 41, 30-35. (Pubitemid 36553874)
12. Cox R., Hyde M., Gatehouse S., Noble W., Dillon H. et al. 2000. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear, 21, 106S-115S.
13. Cox R.M., Stephens D. & Kramer S.E. 2002. Translations of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). Int J Audiol, 41, 3-26. (Pubitemid 36553872)
14. Elberling C., Ludvigsen C. & Lyregaard P.E. 1989. DANTALE: A new Danish speech material. Scand Audiol, 18, 169-175. (Pubitemid 19235019)
15. Franklin C.A., Thelin J.W., Nabelek A.K. & Burchfield S.B. 2006. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 141-146. (Pubitemid 351324932)
16. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Nabelek A.K., Burchfield S.B. & Thelin J.W. 2005a. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 228-236. (Pubitemid 43375736)
17. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Nabelek A.K. & Tampas J.W. 2008a. Relationship between acceptable noise level and the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 136-146. (Pubitemid 351206580)
18. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Plyler P.N., Thelin J.W. & Burchfield S.B. 2006b. Acceptance of noise with monaural and binaural amplification. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 659-666. (Pubitemid 44596746)
19. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Plyler P.N., Thelin J.W. & Hedrick M.S. 2007. The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 878-885. (Pubitemid 350058566)
20. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Plyler P.N., Thelin J.W. & Muenchen R.A. 2008b. Acceptance of noise growth patterns in hearing aid users. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 126-35. (Pubitemid 351206579)
21. Freyaldenhoven M.C., Smiley D.F., Muenchen R.A. & Konrad T.N. 2006a. Acceptable noise level: Reliability measures and comparison to preference for background sounds. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 640-648. (Pubitemid 44596744)
22. Freyaldenhoven M.F., Thelin J.W., Plyler P.N., Nabelek A.K. & Burchfield S.B. 2005b. Effect of stimulant medication on the acceptance of background noise in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 677-686. (Pubitemid 43375770)
23. Gordon-Hickey S. & Moore R.E. 2008. Acceptance of noise with intelligible, reversed, and unfamiliar primary discourse. Am J Audiol, 17, 129-135.
24. Harkrider A.W. & Smith S.B. 2005. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 530-545. (Pubitemid 43375778)
25. Harkrider A.W. & Tampas J.W. 2006. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 667-676. (Pubitemid 44596747)
26. Heuermann H., Kinkel M. & Tchorz J. 2005. Comparison of psychometric properties of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOIHA) in various studies. Int J Audiol, 44, 102-109. (Pubitemid 40676030)
27. Hickson L., Clutterbuck S. & Khan A. 2010. Factors associated with hearing aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA. Int J Audiol, 49, 586-595.
28. Holube I., Fredelake S., Vlaming M. & Kollmeier B. 2010. Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol, 49, 891-903.
29. Humes L.E., Wilson D.L., Barlow N.N. & Garner C. 2002. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45, 772-782.
30. IEC 60318-2. 1998. Electroacoustics-Simulators of human head and ear-Part 2: An interim acoustic coupler for the calibration of audiometric earphones in the extended high-frequency range. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
31. ISO 389-5. 2006. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 5: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones in the frequency range 8000 Hz to 16000 Hz. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
32. ISO 389-8. 2004. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
33. ISO 8253-1.1998. Acoustics: Audiometric test methods part 1: Basic pure tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization
34. Jespersen C.T., Bille M., Groth J. & Hansen T. 2005. Danish reference data for the IOI-HA questionnaire. In: A.N. Rasmussen, T. Poulsen, T. Andersen, C.B. Larsen (eds.), 21st Danavox Symposium 2005 on Hearing Aid Fitting. Denmark: Centertryk, 475-492.
35. Kim J.S. & Bryan M.F. 2011. The effects of asymmetric directional microphone fittings on acceptance of background noise. Int J Audiol, 50, 290-296.
36. Kramer S.E., Allessie G.H., Dondorp A.W., Zekveld A.A. & Kapteyn T.S. 2005. A home education program for older adults with hearing impairment and their significant others: A randomized trial evaluating shortand long-term effects. Int J Audiol, 44, 255-264. (Pubitemid 40910776)
37. Kramer S.E., Goverts S.T., Dreschler W.A., Boymans M. & Festen J.M. 2002. International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Results from The Netherlands. Int J Audiol, 41, 36-41. (Pubitemid 36553875)
38. Larson V.D., Williams D.W., Henderson W.G., Luethke L.E., Beck L.B. et al. 2002. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear Hear, 23, 269-276.
39. Liu H., Zhang H., Liu S., Chen X., Han D. et al. 2011. International outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA): Results from the Chinese version. Int J Audiol, 50, 673-678.
40. Margolis R.H. & Goycoolea H.G. 1993. Multifrequency tympanometry in normal adults. Ear Hear, 14, 408-413. (Pubitemid 23358054)
41. Meister H., Lausberg I., Kiessling J., von Wedel H. & Walger M. 2005. Detecting components of hearing aid fitting using a self-assessmentinventory. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 262, 580-586. (Pubitemid 41159122)
42. Metselaar M., Maat B., Krijnen P., Verschuure H., Dreschler W.A. et al. 2009. Self-reported disability and handicap after hearing-aid fitting and benefit of hearing aids: Comparison of fitting procedures, degree of hearing loss, experience with hearing aids and uni-and bilateral fittings. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 266, 907-917.
43. Moore R., Gordon-Hickey S. & Jones A. 2011. Most comfortable listening levels, background noise levels, and acceptable noise levels for children and adults with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 22, 286-93.
44. Mueller H.G., Weber J. & Hornsby B.W. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10, 83-93.
45. Nabelek A.K., Freyaldenhoven M.C., Tampas J.W., Burchfiel S.B. & Muenchen R.A. 2006. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 626-639. (Pubitemid 44596743)
46. Nabelek A.K., Tampas J.W. & Burchfield S.B. 2004. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47, 1001-1011. (Pubitemid 39492059)
47. Nabelek A.K., Tampas J.W. & Freyaldenhoven M.C. 2007. Further questions about the acceptable noise level test: A response to Dr. Hamill. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 185-187. (Pubitemid 46505482)
48. Nabelek A.K., Tucker F.M. & Letowski T.R. 1991. Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 679-685.
49. Öberg M., Lunner T. & Andersson G. 2007. Psychometric evaluation of hearing specific self-report measures and their associations with psychosocial and demographic variables. Audiol Med, 5, 188-199. (Pubitemid 47537382)
50. Olsen S.Ø., Nielsen L.H., Lantz J. & Brännström K.J. 2012. The acceptable noise level: Repeatability with Danish and non-semantic speech materials for adults with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 51, 557-563.
51. Plyler P.N., Alworth L.N., Rossini T.P. & Mapes K.E. 2011. Effects of speech signal content and speaker gender on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol, 50, 243-248.
52. Plyler P.N., Madix S.G., Thelin J.W. & Johnston K.W. 2007 Contribution of high-frequency information to the acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Am J Audiol, 16, 149-156. (Pubitemid 351250987)
53. Rogers D.S., Harkrider A.W., Burchfield S.B. & Nabelek A.K. 2003. The infl uence of listener ' s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 372-382.
54. Smith S.L., Noe C.M. & Alexander G.C. 2009. Evaluation of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids in a veteran sample. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 374-380.
55. Stark P. & Hickson L. 2004. Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int J Audiol, 43, 390-398. (Pubitemid 39214907)
56. Stephens D. 2002. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and its relationship to the Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI). Int J Audiol, 41, 42-47. (Pubitemid 36553876)
57. Tampas J.W. & Harkrider A.W. 2006. Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 1548-1561. (Pubitemid 43326024)
58. Taylor B. 2008. The acceptable noise level test as a predictor of real-world hearing aid benefit. Hear J, 61(09), 39-42.
59. von Hapsburg D. & Bahng J. 2006. Acceptance of background noise levels in bilingual (Korean-English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 649-658. (Pubitemid 44596745)
60. Vestergaard M.D. 2006. Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users: Longitudinal trends and relationships between subjective measures of benefit and satisfaction. Int J Audiol, 45, 382-392. (Pubitemid 44385187)