Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: The limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 29-36

  Magnusson, Lennart ^a,b   Claesson, Ann ^a,b   Persson, Maria ^a,b   Tengstrand, Tomas ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Directional benefit; Directional microphone; Hearing aid; IOI HA; Noise reduction; Omnidirectional microphone; Open fitting

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECOGNITION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOUND LOCALIZATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84870883254     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.707335     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alcantara J.L., Moore B.C., Kuhnel V. & Launer S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34-42.
2. Barrenas M.L. & Wikstrom I. 2000. The infl uence of hearing and age on speech recognition scores in noise in audiological patients and in the general population. Ear Hear, 21, 569-577.
3. Bentler R.A., Egge J.L., Tubbs J.L., Dittberner A.B. & Flamme G.A. 2004. Quantifi cation of directional benefi t across different polar response patterns. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 649-659.
4. 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.
5. Brannstrom K.J. & Wennerstrom I. 2010. Hearing-aid fi tting 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Flynn M. 2004. Maitaining the directional advantage in open fi ttings. Hear Rev, 11, 32-36.
9. Hagerman B. 1982. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol, 11, 79-87.
10. Hagerman B. & Kinnefors C. 1995. Effi cient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
11. Hallgren M., Larsby B. & Arlinger S. 2006. A Swedish version of the hearing in noise test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition. Int J Audiol, 45, 227-237.
12. Hawkins D.B. & Yacullo W.S. 1984. Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. J Speech Hear Disord, 49, 278-286.
13. Hessefort K. 2010. High spontaneous acceptance and excellent customer satisfaction. Field Study News: Phonak hearing systems.
14. Kuk F., Keenan D. & Lau C.C. 2009. Comparison of vent effects between a solid earmold and a hollow earmold. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 480-491.
15. Kuk F., Keenan D. & Ludvigsen C. 2005. Effi cacy of an open-fi tting hearing aid. Hear Rev, 12, 26-31.
16. Magnusson L. 1995. Reliable clinical determination of speech recognition scores using Swedish PB words in speech-weighted noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 217-223.
17. 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.
18. Peeters H., Kuk F., Lau C.C. & Keenan D. 2009. Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 89- 98.
19. Pumford J.M., Seewald R.C., Scollie S.D. & Jenstad L.M. 2000. Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 23-35.
20. Ricketts T. 2000a. Directivity quantifi cation in hearing aids: Fitting and measurement effects. Ear Hear, 21, 45-58.
21. Ricketts T. 2000b. Impact of noise source confi guration on directional hearing aid benefi t and performance. Ear Hear, 21, 194-205.
22. Ricketts T. & Dahr S. 1999. Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 180-189.
23. Ricketts T., Henry P. & Gnewikow D. 2003. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids. Ear Hear, 24, 424-439.
24. Ricketts T. & Mueller H.G. 2000. Predicting directional hearing-aid benefi t for individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 561-569.
25. Ricketts T.A. & Hornsby B.W. 2005. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 270-277.
26. Wagener K., Josvassen J.L. & Ardenkjaer R. 2003. Design, optimization, and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. Int J Audiol, 42, 10-17.
27. Valente M., Fabry D.A. & Potts L.G. 1995. Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 440-449.
28. Valente M. & Mispagel K.M. 2008. Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fi t hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 47, 329-336.
29. Vestergaard M.D. 2006. Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users: Longitudinal trends and relationships between subjective measures of benefi t and satisfaction. Int J Audiol, 45, 382-392.