Selecting and Adjusting Amplification for Older Listeners

Pamela E. Souza

doi:10.1055/s-2006-954857

Seminars in Hearing, Table of Contents

Semin Hear 2006; 27(4): 303-310
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-954857

Selecting and Adjusting Amplification for Older Listeners

Pamela E. Souza¹

¹Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Older listeners with hearing loss have unique communication needs that dictate the practical and theoretical decisions concerning amplification. Although age-related differences may not be apparent in easy listening situations such as speech in quiet, in complex listening situations such as rapid speech or speech in high levels of background noise older listeners perform more poorly than younger listeners with similar hearing thresholds. This article reviews recent work on older listeners' responses to signal processing strategies used in digital hearing aids. Research results are extended to hearing aid selection and fitting recommendations that can be applied in the clinical setting.

KEYWORDS

Signal processing - digital - directional - age

Full Text

References

REFERENCES

1 Kochkin S, Marke VI Trak. Hearing loss population tops 31 million people. Hear Rev. 2005; 12 16-29
2 Carmeli E, Patish H, Coleman R. The aging hand. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003; 58 146-152
3 Gohdes D M, Balamurugan A, Larsen B A, Maylahn C. Age-related eye diseases: an emerging challenge for public health professionals. Prev Chronic Dis. 2005; 2 A17
4 Meister H, von Wedel H. Demands on hearing aid features-special signal processing for elderly users?. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42(suppl 2) 58-62
5 Upfold L J, May A E, Battaglia J A. Hearing aid manipulation skills in an elderly population: a comparison of ITE, BTE and ITC aids. Br J Audiol. 1990; 24 311-318
6 May A E, Upfold J L, Battaglia J A. The advantages and disadvantages of ITC, ITE and BTE hearing aids: diary and interview reports from elderly users. Br J Audiol. 1990; 24 301-309
7 Humes L E, Wilson D L, Humes A C. Examination of differences between successful and unsuccessful elderly hearing aid candidates matched for age, hearing loss and gender. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42 432-441
8 Strom K E. The HR 2005 dispenser survey. Hear Rev. 2005; 12 18-36
9 Jerger J, Chmiel R. Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997; 8 269-276
10 Humes L. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol. 1996; 7 161-167
11 Souza P E, Tremblay K L, Boike K T. Effects of decreased audibility produced by high-pass maskers in younger and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003; 14 427-433
12 Souza P, Boike K. Temporal cues across channels: effects of age and hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 2006; 49 138-149
13 Pichora-Fuller M K, Souza P E. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42(suppl 2) 11-16
14 Burda A N, Scherz J A, Hageman C F, Edwards H T. Age and understanding speakers with Spanish or Taiwanese accents. Percept Mot Skills. 2003; 97 11-20
15 Olsen W O. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: a summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol. 1998; 7 21-25
16 Kirkwood D. Dispensers surveyed on what leads to patient satisfaction. Hear J. 2005; 58 19-26
17 Souza P. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and speech quality. Trends Amplif. 2002; 6 131-165
18 Jenstad L, Souza P E. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48 651-667
19 Humes L E, Humes L E, Wilson D L. A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design. Am J Audiol. 2004; 13 39-53
20 Larson V D, Williams D W, Henderson W G et al.. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear Hear. 2002; 23 269-276
21 Boike K. Influence of age on the recognition of amplitude compressed speech in backgrounds varying in temporal complexity [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seattle, WA; University of Washington 2004
22 Souza P E. Older listeners' use of temporal cues altered by nonlinear amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 48 661-674
23 Souza P E, Kitch V. The contribution of amplitude envelope cues to sentence identification in young and aged listeners. Ear Hear. 2001; 22 112-119
24 Humes L E, Christopherson L. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory processing deficits. J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 34 686-693
25 Jenstad L. The effect of temporal envelope changes on recognition of normal rate and time-compressed speech by young-old and old-old hearing-impaired listeners [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seattle, WA; University of Washington 2005
26 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42 S77-S85
27 Atkinson H H, Cesari M, Kritchevsky S B et al.. Predictors of combined cognitive and physical decline. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53 1197-1202
28 Qiu C, Fratiglioni L. Epidemiology of cerebrovascular disease related cognitive decline. Int Psychogeriatr. 2003; 15(suppl 1) 105-110
29 Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I: Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif. 2004; 8 83-124
30 Lewis M S, Crandell C C, Valente M, Horn J E. Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004; 15 426-439
31 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004; 15 353-364
32 Yueh B, Souza P E, McDowell J A et al.. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 127 1197-1204
33 Ricketts T A, Hornsby B W. Distance and reverberation effects on directional benefit. Ear Hear. 2003; 24 472-484
34 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Olson L. Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002; 13 295-307
35 Kuk F. Subjective preference for microphone types in daily listening environments. Hear J. 1996; 49 29-35
36 Kuk F, Keenan A D, Lau C C, Ludvigsen C. Performance of a fully adaptive directional microphone to signals presented from various azimuths. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005; 16 333-347
37 Ricketts T, Henry P. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid. Int J Audiol. 2002; 41 100-112
38 Olson L, Ioannou M, Trine T D. Appraising an automatically switching directional system in the real world. Hear J. 1999; 57 32-38
39 Bentler R A, Tubbs J L, Egge J L, Flamme G A, Dittberner A B. Evaluation of an adaptive directional system in a DSP hearing aid. Am J Audiol. 2004; 13 73-79
40 Carter A S, Noe C M, Wilson R H. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12 261-272
41 Strouse A, Wilson R H. Recognition of one- two-, and three-pair dichotic digits under free and directed recall. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10 557-571
42 Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hear. 2004; 25 22-33
43 Fulks J S, Fallon Jr L F. The older worker. Occup Med. 2001; 16 501-507
44 Cox R M, Alexander G C, Gray G A. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers. Ear Hear. 2005; 26 12-26

Pamela E SouzaPh.D.

Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle

WA 98105

Email: psouza@u.washington.edu