Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 37, Issue , 2016, Pages 145S-154S

  Lunner, Thomas ^a,b   Rudner, Mary ^a   Rosenbom, Tove ^b   Ågren, Jessica ^b   Ng, Elaine Hoi Ning ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b OTICON A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Bone anchored hearing AIDS; Competing speech; Free recall; Noise reduction; Working memory

Indexed keywords

AGED; CONDUCTION DEAFNESS; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PROCEDURES; PROSTHETIC FITTING; RECALL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AGED; DENMARK; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, CONDUCTIVE; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSTHESIS FITTING; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 84978287498     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: 15384667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000294     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (54)

1. Akeroyd, M. A., Arlinger, S., Bentler, R. A., et al. (2015). International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests. Int J Audiol, 54(Suppl 2), 17-22.
2. Baldwin, C. L., & Ash, I. K. (2011). Impact of sensory acuity on auditory working memory span in young and older adults. Psychol Aging, 26, 85-91.
3. Boldt, J. B., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M. S., et al. (2008). Estimation of the ideal binary mask using directional systems. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Acoustic Echo and Noise Control, URL (consulted April 2015). Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.iwaenc.org/proceedings/2008/contents/papers/9062.pdf.
4. Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 101-114.
5. Bosman, A. J., Hol, M., Snik, A. F. M., et al. (2014) Evaluating oticon medical ponto plus and ponto pro sound processor. Audiol Online, Article 12616.
6. Bramsløw, L. (2004). An objective estimate of the perceived quality of reproduced sound in normal and impaired hearing. Acta Acust United Acust, 90, 1007-1018.
7. Brand, T., & Kollmeier, B. (2002). Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801-2810.
8. Brons, I., Houben, R., Dreschler, W. A. (2013). Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Ear Hear, 34, 29-41.
9. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Behav, 19, 450-466.
10. Danermark, B., Granberg, S., Kramer, S. E., et al. (2013). The creation of a comprehensive and a brief core set for hearing loss using the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Am J Audiol, 22, 323-328.
11. Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. N., Hagerman, B. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res, 31, 166-177.
12. Gosselin, P. A., & Gagné, J. P. (2010). Use of a dual-task paradigm to measure listening effort. Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol, 34, 43-51.
13. Hagerman, B., & Kinnefors, C. (1995). Efficient adaptive methods for measurements of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol, 24, 71-77.
14. Haverkamp, L. (2015). Erfassung von Alltagssituationen mithilfe von Echtzeitaufnahmen und subjektiven Bewertungen [In German]. Unpublished Bachleor Thesis, 2015, Jade Hochschule, Oldenburg, Germany.
15. Haverkamp, L., Gablenz, P. V., Kissner, S., et al. (2015). Erfassung von Alltagssituationen mithilfe von Echtzeitaufnahmen und subjektiven Bewertungen [In German]. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie DGA, Bochum, Germany.
16. HÅkansson, B., Tjellström, A., Rosenhall, U. (1984). Hearing thresholds with direct bone conduction versus conventional bone conduction. Scand Audiol, 13, 3-13.
17. Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., et al. (2005). Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 44, 574-583.
18. Helfer, K. S., & Freyman, R. L. (2008). Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear, 29, 87-98.
19. Holube, I., Fredelake, S., Vlaming, M., et al. (2010). Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol, 49, 891-903.
20. Humes, L. E. (2007). The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 590-603.
21. Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T. S., Houtgast, T. (2006). Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work. Int J Audiol, 45, 503-512.
22. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467-477.
23. Li, Y., & Wang, D. (2009). On the optimality of ideal binary time-frequency masks. Speech Commun, 51, 230-239.
24. Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49-S58.
25. Lunner, T., Hietkamp, R. K., Andersen, M. R., et al. (2012). Effect of speech material on the benefit of temporal fine structure information in speech for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired participants. Ear Hear, 33, 377-388.
26. Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., et al. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Lang Cognitive Proc, 27, 953-978.
27. McCoy, S. L., Tun, P. A., Cox, L. C., et al. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort: downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech. Quart J Exp Psychol A, 58, 22-33.
28. McGarrigle, R., Munro, K. J., Dawes, P., et al. (2014). Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group "white paper." Int J Audiol, 53, 433-440.
29. Murdock, B. B. (1974). Human Memory: Theory and Data. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Neher, T., Behrens, T., Carlile, S., et al. (2009). Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition. Int J Audiol, 48, 758-774.
31. Ng, E. H. N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2013). Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearingaid users. Int J Audiol, 52, 433-441.
32. Ng, E. H. N., Rudner, M., Lunner, T., et al. (2015). Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear, 36, 82-91.
33. Nielsen, J. B., & Dau, T. (2010). The Danish hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 50, 202-208.
34. 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.
35. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Singh, G. (2006). Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif, 10, 29-59.
36. 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, 593-608.
37. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Kramer, S. E., Eckert, M., et al. (2016). Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: A framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear, 27, 5S-27S.
38. Plomp, R., & Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am, 66, 1333-1342.
39. Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968) Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory, Quart J Exp Psychol, 20, 241-248.
40. Rabbitt, P. (1991). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with IQ. Acta Oto-laryng, 476(Suppl), 167-176.
41. Rönnberg, J., Arlinger, S., Lyxell, B., et al. (1989). Visual evoked potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J Speech Hear Res, 32, 725-735.
42. Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., et al. (2013). The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 13.
43. Rosen, S., Souza, P., Ekelund, C., et al. (2013). Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: Effects of talker number and noise vocoding. J Acoust Soc Am, 133, 2431-2443.
44. Rudner, M., & Lunner, T. (2014). Cognitive spare capacity and speech communication: A narrative overview. BioMed Res Int, 2014, Article ID 869726, 10 pages.
45. Rudner, M. (2016). Cognitive spare capacity as an index of listening effort. Ear Hear, 27, 69S-76S.
46. Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., et al. (2009). Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 52, 1230-1240.
47. Smeds, K., Wolters, F., Rung, M. (2015). Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 183-196.
48. Smith, S. L., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2015). Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: Effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss. Front Psychol, 6, 1394.
49. Smith, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Wilson, R., et al. (2015). Development of the word auditory recognition and recall measure (WARRM): A working memory test for use in rehabilitative audiology. Ear Hear. Revision submitted.
50. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res, 28, 455-462.
51. Vatti, M. (2013). SWIRL test setup description. Internal Eriksholm Research Centre report no. 2014-14-I.
52. Wang, D. L., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M. S., et al. (2009). Speech intelligibilityin background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 2336-2347.
53. Wilson, R. H. (2003). Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 453-470.
54. World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health 2001 Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization