Binaural Interference and the Effects of Age and Hearing Loss

Abstract

Background:

The existence of binaural interference, defined here as poorer speech recognition with both ears than with the better ear alone, is well documented. Studies have suggested that its prevalence may be higher in the elderly population. However, no study to date has explored binaural interference in groups of younger and older adults in conditions that favor binaural processing (i.e., in spatially separated noise). Also, the effects of hearing loss have not been studied.

Purpose:

To examine binaural interference through speech perception tests, in groups of younger adults with normal hearing, older adults with normal hearing for their age, and older adults with hearing loss.

Research Design:

A cross-sectional study.

Study Sample:

Thirty-three participants with symmetric thresholds were recruited from the University of Iowa community. Participants were grouped as follows: younger with normal hearing (18–28 yr, n = 12), older with normal hearing for their age (73–87 yr, n = 9), and older with hearing loss (78–94 yr, n = 12). Prior noise exposure was ruled out.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The Connected Speech Test (CST) and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) were administered to all participants bilaterally, and to each ear separately. Test materials were presented in the sound field with speech at 0° azimuth and the noise at 180°. The Dichotic Digits Test (DDT) was administered to all participants through earphones. Hearing aids were not used during testing. Group results were compared with repeated measures and one-way analysis of variances, as appropriate. Within-subject analyses using pre-established critical differences for each test were also performed.

Results:

The HINT revealed no effect of condition (individual ear versus bilateral presentation) using group analysis, although within-subject analysis showed that 27% of the participants had binaural interference (18% had binaural advantage). On the CST, there was significant binaural advantage across all groups with group data analysis, as well as for 12% of the participants at each of the two signal-to-babble ratios (SBRs) tested. One participant had binaural interference at each SBR. Finally, on the DDT, a significant right-ear advantage was found with group data, and for at least some participants. Regarding age effects, more participants in the pooled elderly groups had binaural interference (33.3%) than in the younger group (16.7%), on the HINT. The presence of hearing loss yielded overall lower scores, but none of the comparisons between bilateral and unilateral performance were affected by hearing loss.

Conclusions:

Results of within-subject analyses on the HINT agree with previous findings of binaural interference in ≥17% of listeners. Across all groups, a significant right-ear advantage was also seen on the DDT. HINT results support the notion that the prevalence of binaural interference is likely higher in the elderly population. Hearing loss, however, did not affect the differences between bilateral and better unilateral scores. The possibility of binaural interference should be considered when fitting hearing aids to listeners with symmetric hearing loss. Comparing bilateral to unilateral (unaided) performance on tests such as the HINT may provide the clinician with objective data to support subjective preference for one hearing aid as opposed to two.

Key Words

aging - hearing aids - hearing loss - speech perception

Portions of this study were presented at the Aging Mind and Brain Initiative Inaugural Symposium in Iowa City, IA, March 23, 2012.

• REFERENCES

• Akeroyd MA. 2006; The psychoacoustics of binaural hearing. Int J Audiol 45 (1, Suppl) S25-S33
• Allen RL, Schwab BM, Cranford JL, Carpenter MD. 2000; Investigation of binaural interference in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (09) 494-500
• Bellis TJ. 2003. Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in the Educational Setting: From Science to Practice. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning;
• Boymans M, Goverts ST, Kramer SE, Festen JM, Dreschler WA. 2008; A prospective multi-centre study of the benefits of bilateral hearing aids. Ear Hear 29 (06) 930-941
• Boymans M, Goverts ST, Kramer SE, Festen JM, Dreschler WA. 2009; Candidacy for bilateral hearing aids: a retrospective multicenter study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (01) 130-140
• Carter AS, Noe CM, Wilson RH. 2001; Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 12 (05) 261-272
• Chmiel R, Jerger J, Murphy E, Pirozzolo F, Tooley-Young C. 1997; Unsuccessful use of binaural amplification by an elderly person. J Am Acad Audiol 8 (01) 1-10
• Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA) 1988; Speech understanding and aging. Working Group on Speech Understanding and Aging. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. J Acoust Soc Am 83 (03) 859-895
• Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. 1987; Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 8 (5, Suppl) 119S-126S
• Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. 1988; Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9 (04) 198-207
• Cox RM, Schwartz KS, Noe CM, Alexander GC. 2011; Preference for one or two hearing AIDS among adult patients. Ear Hear 32 (02) 181-197
• Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. 1993; Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. JAMA 269 (18) 2386-2391
• Department of Veterans Affairs 1998. Tonal and speech materials for auditory perceptual assessment, Disc 2.0. Mountain Home, TN: Veterans Affairs Medical Center;
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. 1975; “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12 (03) 189-198
• Henkin Y, Waldman A, Kishon-Rabin L. 2007; The benefits of bilateral versus unilateral amplification for the elderly: are two always better than one?. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 18 (03) 201-216
• Holmes AE. 2003; Bilateral amplification for the elderly: are two aids better than one?. Int J Audiol 42 (2, Suppl) 2S63-2S67
• Humes LE, Dubno JR, Gordon-Salant S, Lister JJ, Cacace AT, Cruickshanks KJ, Gates GA, Wilson RH, Wingfield A.. 2012; Central presbycusis: a review and evaluation of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (08) 635-666
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2000) Acoustics – Statistical Distribution of Hearing Thresholds as a Function of Age (ISO 7029:2000)
• Jerger J. 2001; Asymmetry in auditory function in elderly persons. Semin Hear 22: 255-270
• Jerger J, Silman S, Lew HL, Chmiel R. 1993; Case studies in binaural interference: converging evidence from behavioral and electrophysiologic measures. J Am Acad Audiol 4 (02) 122-131
• Keys JW. 1947; Binaural versus monaural hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 19: 629-631
• Kimura D. 1961; Some effects of temporal-lobe damage on auditory perception. Can J Psychol 15: 156-165
• Köbler S, Lindblad A-C, Olofsson A, Hagerman B. 2010; Successful and unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification: differences and similarities in binaural performance. Int J Audiol 49 (09) 613-627
• Kock WE. 1950; Binaural localization and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 22: 801-804
• Koenig W. 1950; Subjective effects in binaural hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 22: 61-62
• Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. 2006; Acceleration of age-related hearing loss by early noise exposure: evidence of a misspent youth. J Neurosci 26 (07) 2115-2123
• McArdle RA, Killion M, Mennite MA, Chisolm TH. 2012; Are two ears not better than one?. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (03) 171-181
• McFadden D, Pasanen EG. 1976; Lateralization of high frequencies based on interaural time differences. J Acoust Soc Am 59 (03) 634-639
• Middlebrooks JC, Green DM. 1991; Sound localization by human listeners. Annu Rev Psychol 42: 135-159
• Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4 (02) 79-83
• Musiek FE, Pinheiro ML. 1985. Dichotic speech tests in the detection of central auditory dysfunction. In: Pinheiro ML, Musiek FE. Assessment of Central Auditory Dysfunction—Foundations and Clinical Correlates. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 201-217
• Nicholls MER. 1998; Support for a structural model of aural asymmetries. Cortex 34 (01) 99-110
• Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 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 (02) 1085-1099
• Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Macdonald E, Pass HE, Brown S. 2007; Temporal jitter disrupts speech intelligibility: a simulation of auditory aging. Hear Res 223 1–2 114-121
• Strom KE. 2014; HR 2013 dispenser survey: dispensing in the age of internet and big box retailers. Hear Rev 21: 22-28
• Strouse A, Wilson RH. 1999; a Recognition of one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digits under free and directed recall. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (10) 557-571
• Strouse A, Wilson RH. 1999; b Stimulus length uncertainty with dichotic digit recognition. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (04) 219-229
• Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
• Walden TC, Walden BE. 2005; Unilateral versus bilateral amplification for adults with impaired hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (08) 574-584
• Wong PCM, Jin JXM, Gunasekera GM, Abel R, Lee ER, Dhar S. 2009; Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia 47 (03) 693-703