Effects of Adaptive Hearing Aid Directionality and Noise Reduction on Masked Speech Recognition for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech recognition associated with activation of a fully adaptive directional hearing aid algorithm in children with mild to severe bilateral sensory/neural hearing loss. Method Fourteen children (5–14 years old) who are hard of hearing participated in this study. Participants wore laboratory hearing aids. Open-set word recognition thresholds were measured adaptively for 2 hearing aid settings: (a) omnidirectional (OMNI) and (b) fully adaptive directionality. Each hearing aid setting was evaluated in 3 listening conditions. Fourteen children with normal hearing served as age-matched controls. Results Children who are hard of hearing required a more advantageous signal-to-noise ratio than children with normal hearing to achieve comparable performance in all 3 conditions. For children who are hard of hearing, the average improvement in signal-to-noise ratio when comparing fully adaptive directionality to OMNI was 4.0 dB in noise, regardless of target location. Children performed similarly with fully adaptive directionality and OMNI settings in the presence of the speech maskers. Conclusions Compared to OMNI, fully adaptive directionality improved speech recognition in steady noise for children who are hard of hearing, even when they were not facing the target source. This algorithm did not affect speech recognition when the background noise was speech. Although the use of hearing aids with fully adaptive directionality is not proposed as a substitute for remote microphone systems, it appears to offer several advantages over fixed directionality, because it does not depend on children facing the target talker and provides access to multiple talkers within the environment. Additional experiments are required to further evaluate children's performance under a variety of spatial configurations in the presence of both noise and speech maskers.

Auditory, Cognitive, and Linguistic Factors Predict Speech Recognition in Adverse Listening Conditions for Children With Hearing Loss

“…Thus, we expect that children with hearing loss may have performed more favorably if the target and masker were spatially separated than in the current study where target and masker were co-located. However, previous research with children with hearing loss demonstrates large individual differences in spatial release from masking with hearing aids (Ching et al, 2011; Browning et al, 2019). Thus, the effects of noise and reverberation on aided spatial release from masking in children with hearing loss would need to be directly examined in future research.…”

Short-Term Pediatric Acclimatization to Adaptive Hearing Aid Technology

“…Browning and colleagues (2019) investigated the immediate effects of a HA signal processing system called OpenSound Navigator (OSN) by Oticon in 5 to 14 year old HA users with SNHL ranging from the mild to severe degree. OSN is an adaptive integrated HA system that uses a two channel spatial-microphone noise estimator in series with a minimum-variance distortionless response (MVDR) beamformer and a modulation-based DNR program.…”

“…Words in noise test (Browning et al, 2019): Condition 1 involves speech presented in front of the listener at 0° azimuth with speech shaped noise (SSN) behind the listener at +/- 135°; Condition 2 involves speech presented to the side of the listener at 60° azimuth with SSN presented at +/-135°; and Condition 3 involves speech presented in front of the listener at 0° azimuth with two talker masker (TTM) presented behind the listener at +/-135°. All conditions were conducted in a 1m radius sound ring in a soundproof booth.…”

“…Browning et al (2019) found no immediate benefit of OSN in TTM compared to omnidirectional amplification. However, through a form of perceptual learning called acclimatization, it is possible that users may learn to take advantage of newly available auditory cues to improve listening in noise skills and cognition (Arlinger et al, 1996; Gibson, 1969).…”

“…The order of testing was randomized in a latin square design across participants. All tests were completed twice: within one week of the HA fitting (time point 1; T1) and 2 months post fitting (time point 2; T2).Listening in noiseWord repetition: SNR thresholds were measured using the same software and stimuli asBrowning et al (2019). Three different listening conditions were used(Figure 1).…”