Evaluation of Potential Benefits and Limitations of Noise-Management Technologies for Children with Hearing Aids

Abstract

Background Children with hearing loss frequently experience difficulty understanding speech in the presence of noise. Although remote microphone systems are likely to be the most effective solution to improve speech recognition in noise, the focus of this study centers on the evaluation of hearing aid noise management technologies including directional microphones, adaptive noise reduction (ANR), and frequency-gain shaping. These technologies can improve children's speech recognition, listening comfort, and/or sound quality in noise. However, individual contributions of these technologies as well as the effect of hearing aid microphone mode on localization abilities in children is unknown.

Purpose The objectives of this study were to (1) compare children's speech recognition and subjective perceptions across five hearing aid noise management technology conditions and (2) compare localization abilities across three hearing aid microphone modes.

Research Design A single-group, repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences and subjective ratings.

Study Sample Fourteen children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis Children's sentence recognition, listening comfort, sound quality, and localization were assessed in a room with an eight-loudspeaker array.

Results and Conclusion The use of adaptive directional microphone technology improves children's speech recognition in noise when the signal of interest arrives from the front and is spatially separated from the competing noise. In contrast, the use of adaptive directional microphone technology may result in a decrease in speech recognition in noise when the signal of interest arrives from behind. The use of a microphone mode that mimics the natural directivity of the unaided auricle provides a slight improvement in speech recognition in noise compared with omnidirectional use with limited decrement in speech recognition in noise when the signal of interest arrives from behind. The use of ANR and frequency-gain shaping provide no change in children's speech recognition in noise. The use of adaptive directional microphone technology, ANR, and frequency-gain shaping improve children's listening comfort, perceived ability to understand speech in noise, and overall listening experience. Children prefer to use each of these noise management technologies regardless of whether the signal of interest arrives from the front or from behind. The use of adaptive directional microphone technology does not result in a decrease in children's localization abilities when compared with the omnidirectional condition. The best localization performance occurred with use of the microphone mode that mimicked the directivity of the unaided auricle.

Keywords

hearing aids - pediatric - audiology - speech recognition - adaptive directional microphone - adaptive noise reduction - frequency-gain shaping

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.

Publication History

Received: 23 April 2021

Accepted: 29 July 2021

Article published online:
05 May 2022

• References

• 1 Wolfe J, Morais M, Neumann S. et al. Evaluation of speech recognition with personal FM and classroom audio distribution systems. J Educ Audiol 2013; 19: 65-79
• 2 Auriemmo J, Kuk F, Lau C, Dornan BK, Sweeton S, Marshall S. Efficacy of an adaptive directional microphone and a noise reduction system for school-aged children. J Educ Audiol 2009; 15: 15-27
• 3 Crukley J, Scollie SD. The effects of digital signal processing features on children's speech recognition and loudness perception. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (01) 99-115
• 4 Kuk FK, Kollofski C, Brown S, Melum A, Rosenthal A. Use of a digital hearing aid with directional microphones in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10 (10) 535-548
• 5 Ricketts T, Galster J, Tharpe AM. Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments. Am J Audiol 2007; 16 (02) 130-144
• 6 Ricketts TA, Picou EM. Speech recognition for bilaterally asymmetric and symmetric hearing aid microphone modes in simulated classroom environments. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (05) 601-609
• 7 Wolfe J, Duke M, Schafer E, Jones C, Rakita L. Evaluation of adaptive noise management technologies for school-age children with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (05) 415-435
• 8 Picou EM, Ricketts TA. How directional microphones affect speech recognition, listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (12) 909-918
• 9 Pittman AL, Hiipakka MM. Hearing impaired children's preference for, and performance with, four combinations of directional microphone and digital noise reduction technology. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (09) 832-844
• 10 Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Dyrlund O. Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 365-396
• 11 Gustafson S, McCreery R, Hoover B, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz P. Listening effort and perceived clarity for normal-hearing children with the use of digital noise reduction. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (02) 183-194
• 12 Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Hoover B, Nishi K, McCreery R, Woods W. Effects of digital noise reduction on speech perception for children with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 345-355
• 13 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
• 14 Ching TY, Scollie SD, Dillon H, Seewald R. A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2009; 49 (Suppl. 01) S4-S15
• 15 Scollie S, Ching TYC, Seewald R. et al. Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: preference in real world use. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (Suppl. 01) S49-S63
• 16 Crukley J, Scollie S, Parsa V. An exploration of nonquiet listening at school. J Educ Audiol 2011; 17: 23-35
• 17 Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 2002; 11 (02) 65-71
• 18 Völker C, Bisitz T, Huber R, Kollmeier B, Ernst SMA. Modifications of the MUlti stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 03) S92-S104
• 19 Lewis DE, Wannagot S. Effects of looking behavior on listening and understanding in a simulated classroom. J Educ Audiol 2014; 20: 24-33
• 20 Scollie S, Levy C, Pourmand N. et al. Fitting noise management signal processing applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: verification protocols. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 237-251
• 21 Marriage JE, Vickers DA, Baer T, Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Comparison of different hearing aid prescriptions for children. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (01) 20-31
• 22 Tomblin JB, Harrison M, Ambrose SE, Walker EA, Oleson JJ, Moeller MP. Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (Suppl. 01) 76S-91S
• 23 O'Brien A, Yeend I, Hartley L, Keidser G, Nyffeler M. Evaluation of frequency compression and high-frequency directionality. Hear J 2010; 63 (08) 32-37
• 24 Pittman A. Age-related benefits of digital noise reduction for short-term word learning in children with hearing loss. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research 2011; 54: 1448-1463
• 25 Ricketts T, Galster J. Head angle and elevation in classroom environments: Implications for amplification. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2008; 51: 516-525