Preliminary Studies on the Use of an ABR Amplitude Projection Procedure for Hearing Aid Selection

Several studies have investigated the relationship between click-evoked auditory brainstem responses ͑ABRs͒ and loudness growth in human listeners. While some of these studies have reported promising results, showing a correlative relationship between click ABR and loudness growth as a function of level, additional studies are necessary to determine if similar results can be obtained with frequency-specific stimuli and more specific details of the loudness function can be derived from ABR recordings. The aims of this study, therefore, were to ͑1͒ develop a fully objective procedure that segments specific features of evoked, tone-burst ABR recordings, ͑2͒ investigate the feasibility of using information derived from these recordings for estimating frequency-specific loudness-growth functions, and ͑3͒ determine to what extent the loudness-growth estimation performance through ABR can be improved by controlling for residual noise levels and parametric fitting. Results from eight normal-hearing listeners using 1-and 4-kHz stimuli show that the average mean-square error of the loudness-growth estimation obtained through the procedure is comparable to that of standard psychoacoustical procedures used to estimate loudness growth. The data set has been made publicly available at www.physionet.org.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating loudness growth from tone-burst evoked responses

Silva

Epstein

2010

“…The two point estimates used were the average RMS and the maximum amplitude squared. The maximum amplitude squared was chosen due to the use of Wave V amplitude for loudness estimation in previous literature (Pratt and Sohmer, 1977;Wilson and Stelmack, 1982;Babkoff et al, 1984;Davidson et al, 1990;Serpanos et al, 1997;Gallego et al, 1999).…”

Section: H Estimation Of Loudness From Tbabrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While this method showed promising results in normal listeners, it was not clear if the performance of the loudness growth estimation technique would be accurate and robust enough to use for estimating loudness growth for a diverse group of HILs. In particular, studies looking into loudness growth and TBABRs have yielded mixed conclusions (Pratt and Sohmer, 1977;Wilson and Stelmack, 1982;Babkoff et al, 1984;Davidson et al, 1990;Serpanos et al, 1997;Gallego et al, 1999), the TBABR measurement variability and residual noise levels being a major source of contention. The Silva and Epstein (2010) method however, attempts to control for part of the variability in the recorded TBABR through the use of the Non-Stationary Fixed-Multiple-Point (NS Fmp) statistic for measuring residual noise levels (see Silva, 2009 for review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective estimation of loudness growth in hearing-impaired listeners

Silva

Epstein

2012

A methodology for the estimation of individual loudness growth functions using tone-burst otoacoustic emissions (TBOAEs) and tone-burst auditory brainstem responses (TBABRs) was proposed by Silva and Epstein [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 3629-3642 (2010)]. This work attempted to investigate the application of such technique to the more challenging cases of hearing-impaired listeners. The specific aims of this study were to (1) verify the accuracy of this technique with eight hearing-impaired listeners for 1-and 4-kHz tone-burst stimuli, (2) investigate the effect of residual noise levels from the TBABRs on the quality of the loudness growth estimation, and (3) provide a public dataset of physiological and psychoacoustical responses to a wide range of stimuli intensity. The results show that some of the physiological loudness growth estimates were within the meansquare-error range for standard psychoacoustical procedures, with closer agreement at 1 kHz. The median residual noise in the TBABRs was found to be related to the performance of the estimation, with some listeners showing strong improvements in the estimated loudness growth function when controlling for noise levels. This suggests that future studies using evoked potentials to estimate loudness growth should control for the estimated averaged residual noise levels of the TBABRs.

“…While inconsistent data exist on the subjective loudness growth function for clicks ͑Cazals and Stephens, 1975;Davidson et al, 1990;Geisler et al, 1958;Pratt and Sohmer, 1977;Raab and Osman, 1962;Wilson and Stelmack, 1982͒, there is evidence that the loudness growth function obtained with clicks approximates the loudness function obtained with tonal stimuli ͑Cazals and Stephens, 1975;Geisler et al, 1958͒. However, there are no data available from CMM loudness studies that used clicks as stimuli; tones have been used in recent CMM studies ͑Ce-faratti and Zwislocki, 1994;Collins and Gescheider, 1989;Hellman and Meiselman, 1988.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modality matching and the loudness growth function for click stimuli

Serpanos

O'Malley

Gravel

1998

Loudness-intensity functions for click stimuli were obtained from 30 adult listeners having normal (n = 10), flat (n = 10), or sloping (n = 10) high-frequency cochlear hearing loss configurations. The procedure of cross-modality matching (CMM) between loudness and perceived line length [R. P. Hellman and C. H. Meiselman, J. Speech Hear. Res. 31, 605-615 (1988); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 2596-2606 (1990); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 966-975 (1993)] was used to validate their loudness growth functions. Mean group loudness exponents were similar to those reported in recent investigations that utilized pure tone stimuli, further supporting the validity and reliability of the CMM task as an estimate of the loudness growth function. The results also suggest that the mean loudness function for clicks is similar to the function obtained with tonal stimuli at least for listeners with moderately impaired hearing or better. Moreover, CMM produced less variability than the more conventional psychophysical methods of magnitude estimation and production for the groups with cochlear hearing loss. Toward direct application of the CMM technique, in lieu of absolute exponential slope values, the individually determined loudness growth function over a range of intensities should be compared to the normal mean functions for calculations of deviations.