Difference in Speech Recognition between a Default and Programmed Telecoil Program

Abstract

Background:

Hearing loss can lead to isolation and social withdrawal. The telephone oftentimes connects persons with hearing loss to society; however, telephone use is impeded by narrow bandwidth, loss of visual cues, electromagnetic interference, and inherent phone-line noise. In the past, research assessing telephone communication has consistently reported that switching from the microphone to a telecoil will typically result in the acoustic signal being discernibly softer. Properly used telecoils improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), decrease the chance for acoustic feedback, and overcome the impact of distance and reverberation creating an opportunity for clearer telephone communication. Little research, however, has examined matching the telecoil frequency response to the prescribed target of the microphone frequency response (National Acoustics Laboratories, Non-Linear, version 1 [NAL-NL1]).

Purpose:

The primary goal of this study was to determine if differences exist in speech recognition for sentences (AZ-BIO) and consonant–vowel nucleus-consonant monosyllabic words (CNC) between two telecoil conditions (default and programmed). A secondary goal was to determine if differences exist in speech recognition for sentences between male and female talkers.

Research Design:

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Study Sample:

Twenty experienced adult hearing aid users with bilateral symmetric slight to severe sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. In addition, ten normal-hearing participants were recruited to determine the presentation level of the speech stimuli for the hearing aid participants.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants underwent real-ear measures to program the microphone frequency response of a receiver-in-the-canal hearing aid to NAL-NL1. Using the manufacturer software, one telecoil program remained as the manufacturer default and a second telecoil program was programmed so the sound pressure level for an inductive telephone simulator frequency response matching the microphone’s frequency response to obtain as close to a 0 dB relative simulated equivalent telephone sensitivity value as possible. Participants then completed speech recognition measures including AZ-BIO sentences (male and female talkers) and CNC monosyllabic words and phonemes, using both telecoil programs. A mixed model analysis was performed to examine if significant differences in speech recognition exist between the two conditions and speech stimuli.

Results:

Results revealed significant improvement in overall speech recognition for the programmed telecoil performance compared with default telecoil performance (p < 0.001). Also, improved performance in the programmed telecoil was reported with a male talker (p < 0.001) and performance for sentences compared with monosyllabic words (p < 0.001) or phonemes (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

The programmed telecoil condition revealed significant improvement in speech recognition for all speech stimuli conditions compared with the default telecoil (sentences, monosyllables, and phonemes). Additional improvement was observed in both telecoil conditions when the talker was male.

Key Words

amplification - hearing aids - telecoil - telephone

• REFERENCES

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2003. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. ANSI S3.22–2003 New York, NY: ANSI;
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2009. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. ANSI S3.22–2009 New York, NY: ANSI;
• Barnett PW. 1999; Overview of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 21 (05) 1-16
• Compton C. 1994; Providing effective telecoil performance with in-the-ear hearing instruments. Hear J 47 (04) 23-33
• Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM. 2003; The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 43 (05) 661-668
• Dillon H. 1999; NAL-NL1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 52 (04) 10-16
• Fairbanks G. 1960. Voice and Articulation Drillbook. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 124-139
• Federal Communications Commission 2003. Hearing Aid Compatibility for Wireline and Wireless Telephones. Washington, DC: FCC;
• Kochkin S, Steikens J, Compton-Conley C, Beck D, Taylor B, Kricos P, Powers TA. 2014 Consumer perceptions of the impact of inductively looped venues on the utility of their hearing devices. Hear Rev 21. (10) http://www.hearingreview.com/2014/09/consumer-perceptions-impact-inductively-looped-venues-utility-hearing-devices/ . Accessed May 20, 2016.
• Lehiste I, Peterson GE. 1959; Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 31 (03) 280-286
• Levitt H. 2007; Historically, the paths of hearing aids and telephones have often intertwined. Hear J 60 (11) 20-24
• Lybarger S. 1947; Development of a new hearing aid with magnetic microphone. Electric Manufacturing 40: 104-108
• McBride I. 2014 Induction induction what’s your function: telecoil revisited. WebSeminar: eaudiologyonline. Accessed November 20, 2017
• Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL. 1992. Probe Microphone Measurements: Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Deigo, CA: Singular Publishing Group;
• Mueller HG, Picou E. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63 (05) 27-32
• Powers and Duties of Speech/Language Pathologists and Hearing Aid Dispensers, 24 Delaware Code § 3706(a). (2016). Retrieved from State of Delaware Code Online Database.
• Preves DA. 1994; A look at the telecoil—its development and potential. J Self-Help Hard Hearing People 15 (05) 7-10
• Putterman DB, Valente M. 2012; Difference between the default telecoil (t-coil) and programmed microphone frequency response in behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (05) 366-378
• Rix A, Hollier M. 1999 Perceptual speech quality assessment from narrowband telephony to wideband audio. Acous Soc Conv: New York
• Rodriguez G, Holmes A, DiSarno N, Kaplan H. 1993; Preferred hearing aid response characteristics under acoustic and telecoil coupling conditions. Am J Audiol 2 (03) 55-59
• Rodriguez G, Holmes A, Gerhardt K. 1985; Microphone vs. telecoil performance characteristics. Hear Instrum 36 (09) 22-44, 57
• Rodriguez G, Meyers C, Holmes A. 1991; Hearing aid performance under acoustic and electromagnetic coupling conditions. Volta Rev 93 (05) 89-95
• Ross M. 2005; Telecoils: issues and relevancy. Semin Hear 26 (02) 99-108
• Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. 2012; Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 33 (01) 112-117
• Takahashi G. 2005; Programming the telecoil: a case study. Sem Hear 26 (02) 109-113
• Tannahill JC. 1983; Performance characteristics for hearing aid microphone versus telephone and telephone/telecoil reception modes. J Speech Hear Res 26 (02) 195-201
• Valente M, Valente M, Goebel J. 1991; Reliability and intersubject variability of the real ear unaided response. Ear Hear 12 (03) 216-220
• World Health Organization 2012 WHO Global Estimates on Prevalence of Hearing Loss. http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/WHO_GE_HL.pdf . Accessed May 20, 2016.
• Yanz J, Preves D. 2003; Telecoils: Principles, pitfalls, fixes, and the future. Sem Hear 24 (01) 29-41