The relationship between hearing aid frequency response and acceptable noise level in patients with sensorineural hearing loss

Jalilvand, Hamid; Pourbakht, Akram; Jalaee, Shohreh

The relationship between hearing aid frequency response and acceptable noise level in patients with sensorineural hearing loss

Authors

¹ Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Statistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: When fitting hearing aid as a compensatory device for an impaired cochlea in a patient with sensorineural hearing loss (HL), it is needed to the effective and efficient frequency response would be selected regarding providing the patient's perfect speech perception. There is not any research about the effects of frequency modifications on speech perception in patients with HL regarding the cochlear desensitization. The effect (s) of modifications in frequency response of hearing aid amplification on the results of acceptable noise level (ANL) test is the main aim of this study.
Materials and Methods: The amounts of ANL in two conditions of linear amplification (high frequency emphasis [HFE] and mid frequency emphasis [MFE]) were measured. Thirty-two male subjects who participated in this study had the moderate to severe sensorineural HL.
Results: There was not any significant difference between ANL in linear amplification of hearing aid with HFE frequency response and ANL in linear amplification of hearing aid with MFE frequency response.
Conclusion: The gain modification of frequency response not only does not affect the patient's performance of speech intelligibility in ANL test. This indicates that we need to note to the cochlear desensitization phenomenon when fitting hearing aid as a compensatory device for an impaired cochlea in a patient. The cochlear desensitization has not been considered properly in hearing aid fitting formula which is needed to be explored more about the bio-mechanisms of impaired cochlea.

Keywords

References

1.	Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: Considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 1994;15:2-12.
2.	Duquesnoy AJ. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;74:739-43. [PUBMED]
3.	Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:1725-36.
4.	Hygge S, Rönnberg J, Larsby B, Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds. J Speech Hear Res 1992;35:208-15.
5.	Baer T, Moore BC. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:2277-80. [PUBMED]
6.	Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Vickers DA. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Br J Audiol 1995;29:131-43.
7.	Peters RW, Moore BC, Baer T. Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;103:577-87.
8.	Bentler RA, Duve MR. Comparison of hearing aids over the 20^th century. Ear Hear 2000;21:625-39.
9.	Kochkin S. 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. Hear Rev 2002;9:14-46.
10.	Kochkin S. Consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. Hear Rev 2002;9:18-22.
11.	Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:353-64.
12.	Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:2395-405.
13.	Wilson RH. Adding speech-in-noise testing to your clinical protocol: Why and how. Hear J 2004;7:10-9.
14.	Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. In: LASR3 (SSB): A Model for the Prediction of Average Speech Recognition Performance of Normal Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Persons. Laboratory Report 92-02, Hearing Sciences Laboratory. Memphis: Memphis State University; 1992.
15.	Freyaldenhoven MC, Smiley DF, Muenchen RA, Konrad TN. Acceptable noise level: Reliability measures and comparison to preference for background sounds. J Am Acad Audiol 2006;17:640-8.
16.	Harkrider AW, Smith SB. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol 2005;16:530-45.
17.	Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1991;34:679-85.
18.	Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004;47:1001-11.
19.	Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Tampas JW. Relationship between acceptable noise level and the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51:136-46.
20.	Gordon-Hickey S, Moore RE. Influence of music and music preference on acceptable noise levels in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:417-27.
21.	Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 2006;17:626-39.
22.	Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol 2002;41:30-5.
23.	Hornsby BW, Johnson EE, Picou E. Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding. Ear Hear 2011;32:543-55.

Advanced Biomedical Research