Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology

Korean Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (대한이비인후과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Hearing Aid Digital Noise Reduction and Directionality on Acceptable Noise Level

  • Ahmadi, Roghayeh (Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Jalilvand, Hamid (Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mahdavi, Mohammad Ebrahim (Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ahmadi, Fatemeh (School of Economic, Allameh Tabataba'i University) ;
  • Baghban, Ali Reza Akbarzade (Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2018.01.14
  • Accepted : 2018.04.17
  • Published : 2018.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives. Two main digital signal processing technologies inside the modern hearing aid to provide the best conditions for hearing aid users are directionality (DIR) and digital noise reduction (DNR) algorithms. There are various possible settings for these algorithms. The present study evaluates the effects of various DIR and DNR conditions (both separately and in combination) on listening comfort among hearing aid users. Methods. In 18 participants who received hearing aid fitting services from the Rehabilitation School of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences regularly, we applied acceptable noise level (ANL) as our subjective measure of listening comfort. We evaluated both of these under six different hearing aid conditions: omnidirectional-baseline, omnidirectional-broadband DNR, omnidirectional-multichannel DNR, directional, directional-broadband DNR, and directional-multichannel DNR. Results. The ANL results ranged from -3 dB to 14 dB in all conditions. The results show, among all conditions, both the omnidirectional-baseline condition and the omnidirectional-broadband DNR condition are the worst conditions for listening in noise. The DIR always reduces the amount of noise that patients received during testing. The DNR algorithm does not improve listening in noise significantly when compared with the DIR algorithms. Although both DNR and DIR algorithms yielded a lower ANL, the DIR algorithm was more effective than the DNR. Conclusion. The DIR and DNR technologies provide listening comfort in the presence of noise. Thus, user benefit depends on how the digital signal processing settings inside the hearing aid are adjusted.

Keywords

References

  1. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VI: consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. Hear Rev. 2002 Nov;9(11):18-22.
  2. McCormack A, Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them? Int J Audiol. 2013 May;52(5):360-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.769066
  3. Ng EH, Rudner M, Lunner T, Pedersen MS, Ronnberg J. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2013 Jul;52(7):433-41. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.776181
  4. Obleser J, Wostmann M, Hellbernd N, Wilsch A, Maess B. Adverse listening conditions and memory load drive a common alpha oscillatory network. J Neurosci. 2012 Sep;32(36):12376-83. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4908-11.2012
  5. Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005 May;16(5):270-7. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16.5.2
  6. Alcantara JL, Moore BC, Kuhnel V, Launer S. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol. 2003 Jan;42(1):34-42.
  7. Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality. Audiology. 2000 Sep-Oct;39(5):260-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/00206090009073090
  8. Peeters H, Kuk F, Lau CC, Keenan D. Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009 Feb;20(2):89-98. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.20.2.2
  9. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 2 ed. Sydney: Boomerang Press; 2012.
  10. 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 Jun;34(3):679-85. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3403.679
  11. Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif. 2006 Jun;10(2):83-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713806289553
  12. Neher T, Grimm G, Hohmann V. Perceptual consequences of different signal changes due to binaural noise reduction: do hearing loss and working memory capacity play a role? Ear Hear. 2014 Sep-Oct; 35(5):e213-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000054
  13. Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Hasson S, Valizadeh L, Jalaie S. Validation of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the Persian population: a pilot study. Appl Neuropsychol. 2010 Jul;17(3):190-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2010.499773
  14. Kuk F, Keenan D. How do vents affect hearing aid performance? Hear Rev. 2006 Feb;13(2):34-42.
  15. Magnusson L, Claesson A, Persson M, Tengstrand T. Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: the limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction. Int J Audiol. 2013 Jan;52(1):29-36. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.707335
  16. Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I. Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: a literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends Hear. 2016 Feb;20:2331216516631741.
  17. Kuk F, Peeters H, Lau C, Korhonen P. Effect of maximum power output and noise reduction on speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011 May;22(5):265-73. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.5.3
  18. Ahmadi A, Fatahi J, Keshani A, Jalilvand H, Modarresi Y, Jalaie S. Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. Sci J Rehabil Med. 2015;4(2):109-17.
  19. Lowery KJ, Plyler PN. The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013 Sep;24(8):649-59. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.8.2
  20. Desjardins JL. The effects of hearing aid directional microphone and noise reduction processing on listening effort in older adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016 Jan;27(1):29-41. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15030
  21. Nordrum S, Erler S, Garstecki D, Dhar S. Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms. Am J Audiol. 2006 Jun;15(1):81-91. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2006/010)
  22. Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. Acoustical and perceptual comparison of noise reduction and compression in hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015 Aug;58(4):1363-76. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0347
  23. Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB, Thelin JW. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005 Apr;16(4):228-36. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16.4.4
  24. Aghsoleimani M, Jalilvand H, Mahdavi ME, Nazeri AR, Kamali M. The acceptable noise level benefit from directionality for listeners with severe hearing loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Sep;11(3): 166-73. https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2017.01375

Cited by

  1. Short-Term Pediatric Acclimatization to Adaptive Hearing Aid Technology vol.30, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_aja-20-00073