Using a Digital Language Processor to Quantify the Auditory Environment and the Effect of Hearing Aids for Adults with Hearing Loss

Abstract

Background Auditory environments can influence the communication function of individuals with hearing loss and the effects of hearing aids. Therefore, a tool that can objectively characterize a patient’s real-world auditory environments is needed. Purpose To use the Language Environment Analysis (LENA) system to quantify the auditory environments of adults with hearing loss, to examine if the use of hearing aids changes a user’s auditory environment, and to determine the association between LENA variables and self-report hearing aid outcome measures. Research Design This study used a crossover design. Study Sample Participants included 22 adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, age 64–82 yr. Intervention Participants were fitted with bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aids from a major manufacturer. Data Collection and Analysis The LENA system consists of a digital language processor (DLP) that is worn by an individual and records up to 16 hr of the individual’s auditory environment. The recording is then automatically categorized according to time spent in different types of auditory environments (e.g., meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound) by the LENA algorithms. The LENA system also characterizes the user’s auditory environment by providing the sound levels of different auditory categories. Participants in the present study wore a LENA DLP in an unaided condition and aided condition, which each lasted six to eight days. Participants wore bilateral hearing aids in the aided condition. Percentage of time spent in each auditory environment, as well as median levels of TV/electronic sounds and speech, were compared between subjects’ unaided and aided conditions using paired sample t tests. LENA data were also compared to self-report measures of hearing disability and hearing aid benefit using Pearson correlations. Results Overall, participants spent the greatest percentage of time in silence (~40%), relative to other auditory environments. Participants spent ~12% and 26% of their time in meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound environments, respectively. No significant differences were found between mean percentage of time spent in each auditory environment in the unaided and aided conditions. Median TV/electronic sound levels were on average 2.4 dB lower in the aided condition than in the unaided condition; speech levels were not significantly different between the two conditions. TV/electronic sound and speech levels did not significantly correlate with self-report data. Conclusions The LENA system can provide rich data to characterize the everyday auditory environments of older adults with hearing loss. Although TV/electronic sound level was significantly lower in the aided than unaided condition, the use of hearing aids seemed not to substantially change users’ auditory environments. Because there is no significant association between objective LENA variables and self-report questionnaire outcomes, these two types of measures may assess different aspects of communication function. The f...

Test-Retest Reliability of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research

“…For example, the older participants in the present study reported "Speech listen-ing, media" in approximately 30% of the EMA surveys (►Table 2). This is fairly similar to the time spent in television watching reported by Klein et al 30 ($26% of the time), Wu and Bentler 5 ($28% of the time), and Mares and Woodard 31 (3.5-3.8 hours/day). Of interest is that in the present study on average the participants reported "quiet" in the Noisiness question in 58% of the surveys (►Table 2).…”

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss

“…Therefore, an unaided condition was included in the study in addition to the four HA conditions. Portions of the audio recording results (Klein et al 2018;Wu et al 2018) have already been published and will not be reported in the current paper. Furthermore, because the larger study also aimed to examine the test-retest reliability of the EMA methodology, participants repeated one of the four HA conditions (randomly selected) before the end of the study.…”

“…More analyses on the EMA data to explore the relationship between HA features and listening situations are needed. Further, the audio recordings collected for the larger study could be used to characterize the listening environments (Klein et al 2018;Wu et al 2018), which might be useful in explaining the effect of HAs and features in the real world. Average audiograms for left and right ears of study participants.…”

Effects of Wireless Remote Microphone on Speech Recognition in Noise for Hearing Aid Users in China

“…The results of this study showed that MM alone provided the best speech recognition ability in a noisy environment for both adults and children, but this result should not be interpreted as a basis to deactivate a hearing aid microphone in noisy environments. For hearing-impaired children, hearing aid microphones can increase the chances of incidental learning (Vermeulen et al, 2012;Klein et al, 2018). HA + MM may be considered as a part of a more comprehensive program, where both target speech and incidental learning are desired.…”