Effect of Digital Noise Reduction and Directionality on Acceptable Noise Level and Recognition of Digit in Noise

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Student Research Committee, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD, Assisstant Professor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Statistic, School of Economic, Allame Tabataba'yee University, Tehran, Iran

5 Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, School of Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: Despite the recent advances in digital processing of hearing aids, a large number of users are not happy with their hearing aids. One of the major reasons for this is the lack of good recognition of speech in noisy environments. Digital noise reduction and directionality are some of the technologies that are helpful in this issue. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effects of these two technologies on listening comfort and speech recognition of individuals with moderate sensory-neural hearing loss.
Materials and Methods: In the current study, we applied Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) and Farsi Auditory Recognition of Digit in Noise (FARDIN), as measures of listening comfort and speech intelligibility, respectively, on 18 participants (8 male and 10 female) who had moderate sensory neural hearing loss. We evaluated both these measures under six different hearing aid conditions: 1) Omnidirectional-DNR/off (baseline), 2) Omnidirectional-Broadband DNR, 3) Omnidirectional-Multichannel DNR, 4) Directional, 5) Directional-Broadband DNA, and 6) Directional-Multicellular DNR.
Results: Both the digital noise reduction technology and the directionality improved the ANL, but the effect of directionality was more than the other. None of the digital noise reduction or directionality could improve the score in FARDIN test, but it did not make the results even worse.
Conclusion: According to the results, since these two technologies improve listening comfort and do not affect speech comprehension, it is recommended that these two options be activated for adjusting the hearing aid in clinics.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V:" Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": The consumers' perspective. The Hearing Journal. 2000;53(2):34-6.##
  2. Palmer CV, Bentler R, Mueller HG. Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends in Amplification. 2006;10(2):95-104. ##
  3. Alcántara JI, Moore BC, Kühnel V, Launer S. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid: Evaluación del sistema de reducción de ruido en un auxiliar auditivo digital comercial. International Journal of Audiology. 2003;42(1):34-42. ##
  4. Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB, Thelin JW. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(4):228-36. ##
  5. Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(7):473-84. ##
  6. Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(5):270-7. ##
  7. Dillon H, Lovegrove R. Single microphone noise reduction systems for hearing aids: A review and an evaluation. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance. 1993;20:353-70. ##
  8. Levitt H. Transformed up‐down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical society of America. 1971;49(2B):467-77. ##
  9. Bray V, Nilsson M. Additive SNR benefits of signal processing features in a directional DSP aid. Hear Rev. 2001;8(12):48-51. ##
  10. Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Edwards B, Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2000;11(10):540-60. ##
  11. Boymans M, Dreschler WA, Schoneveld P, Verschuure H. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. Audiology. 1999;38(2):99-108. ##
  12. Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Field Trials Using a Digital Hearing Aid with Active Noise Reduction and Dual-Microphone Directionality: Estudios de campo utilizando un audifono digital con reduccion activa del ruido y micrófono de direccionalidad dual. Audiology. 2000;39(5):260-8. ##
  13. Valente M, Fabry D, Potts LG, Sandlin RE. Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 1998;9(5). ##
  14. Bentler R, Wu Y-H, Kettel J, Hurtig R. Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies. International Journal of Audiology. 2008;47(8):447-60. ##
  15. Preves DA, editor Approaches to noise reduction in analog, digital, and hybrid hearing aids. Seminars in Hearing; 1990: Copyright© 1990 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. ##
  16. Keidser G. Selecting different amplification for different listening conditions. JOURNAL-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY. 1996;7:92-104. ##
  17. Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Lunner T, Zekveld AA. When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise and Health. 2010;12(49):263. ##
  18. Pichora-Fuller M, Palmer C, Seewald R. Audition and cognition: What audiologists need to know about listening. Hearing care for adults. 2007:71-85. ##
  19. Humes LE. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007;18(7):590-603. ##
  20. Edwards B. The future of hearing aid technology. Trends in amplification. 2007;11(1):31-45. ##
  21. Ronnberg J. Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model. International Journal of Audiology. 2003;42:S68-S76. ##
  22. Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1997;40(2):423-31. ##
  23. Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. International Journal of Audiology. 2008;47(sup2):S53-S71. ##
  24. Vaughan N, Storzbach D, Furukawa I. Sequencing versus nonsequencing working memory in understanding of rapid speech by older listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2006;17(7):506-18. ##
  25. Salthouse T. A theory of cognitive aging: Elsevier; 2000. ##
  26. Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1980;19(4):450-66. ##
  27. Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear and hearing. 2013;34(3):261-72. ##
  28. 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. Applied neuropsychology. 2010;17(3):190-5. ##
  29. 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 and hearing. 2014;35(5):e213-e27. ##
  30. Kuk F, Keenan D. How do vents affect hearing aid performance? Hearing Review. 2006;13(2):34. ##
  31. Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I. Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: A literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends in hearing. 2016;20:2331216516631741. ##
  32. Ahmadi A, Fatahi J, Jalilvand H, Jalaie S. Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2015;4(2):109-17. ##
  33. Wilson RH, Burks CA, Weakley DG. Word recognition of digit triplets and monosyllabic words in multitalker babble by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2006;17(6):385-97. ##
  34. Heidari M, Mahdavi ME, Heidari F, Baghban AA. Auditory recognition of Persian digits in multi-talker babble noise: a preliminary study. Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2015;24(3):134-40. ##
  35. Peeters H, Kuk F, Lau C-c, Keenan D. Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2009;20(2):89-98. ##
  36. Lowery KJ, Plyler PN. The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2013;24(8):649-59. ##
  37. Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends in Amplification. 2006;10(2):83-93. ##
  38. Wu Y-H, Stangl E. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction. Ear and hearing. 2013;34(3):333-41. ##
  39. Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends in hearing. 2014;18:2331216514553924. ##
  40. Auriemmo J, Kuk F, Lau C, Dornan BK, Sweeton S, Marshall S, et al. Efficacy of an adaptive directional microphone and a noise reduction system for school-aged children. Journal of Educational Audiology. 2009;15:15-27. ##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 7, Issue 3
September and October 2018
Pages 263-273

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 September 2017
  • Revise Date: 10 October 2017
  • Accept Date: 17 December 2017
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics