Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 274, Issue 2, pp 671–677 | Cite as

Effect of hearing aid release time and presentation level on speech perception in noise in elderly individuals with hearing loss

  • Jijo Pottackal MathaiEmail author
  • Hasheem Mohammed
Otology

Abstract

To investigate the effect of compression time settings and presentation levels on speech perception in noise for elderly individuals with hearing loss. To compare aided speech perception performance in these individuals with age-matched normal hearing subjects. Twenty (normal hearing) participants within the age range of 60–68 years and 20 (mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss) in the age range of 60–70 years were randomly recruited for the study. In the former group, SNR-50 was determined using phonetically balanced sentences that were mixed with speech-shaped noise presented at the most comfortable level. In the SNHL group, aided SNR-50 was determined at three different presentation levels (40, 60, and 80 dB HL) after fitting binaural hearing aids that had different compression time settings (fast and slow). In the SNHL group, slow compression time settings showed significantly better SNR-50 compared to fast release time. In addition, the mean of SNR-50 in the SNHL group was comparable to normal hearing participants while using a slow release time. A hearing aid with slow compression time settings led to significantly better speech perception in noise, compared to that of a hearing aid that had fast compression time settings.

Keywords

Compression time settings SNR-50 Elderly individuals Hearing loss Speech perception in noise 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Director, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing for granting permission to carry out the study. Sincere gratitude to Rissimol and Ruby for their comments on English.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors (Dr. Jijo Pottackal Mathai and Mr. Mohammed Hasheem) report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

405_2016_4282_MOESM1_ESM.sav (5 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (SAV 4 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dillon H (1988) Handbook of hearing aid amplification, vol 1. Compression in hearing aids. College-Hill Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Tasell DJ (1993) Hearing loss, speech, and hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 36(2):228–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jenstad LM, Souza PE (2005) Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48(3):651–667. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/045) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Souza PE, Turner CW (1996) Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. J Speech Hear Res 39(5):901–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Tasell DJ, Trine TD (1996) Effects of single-band syllabic amplitude compression on temporal speech information in nonsense syllables and in sentences. J Speech Hear Res 39(5):912–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Souza PE, Kitch V (2001) The contribution of amplitude envelope cues to sentence identification in young and aged listeners. Ear Hear 22(2):112–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenstad LM, Souza PE (2007) Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50(5):1123–1138. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/078) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vasil KA, Cienkowski KM (2005) The interaction of hearing aid release time settings and age for the perception of sentences in speech babble. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 38:47–59Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghiringhelli R, Iorio MC (2013) Hearing aids and recovery times: a study according to cognitive status. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 79(2):177–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kathleen Pichora-Fuller M (2006) Perceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: implications for audiologic rehabilitation. Semin Hear 27(04):284–293. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-954855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H (1995) Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am 98(6):3182–3187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar AU, Sangamanatha AV (2011) Temporal processing abilities across different age groups. J Am Acad Audiol 22(1):5–12. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.1.2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geetha C, Kumar KS, Manjula P, Pavan M (2014) Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci 4(1):18–26Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Finney DJ (1952) Statistical methods in biological assay. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American, National, Standard, Institute (ANSI) (1999) Maximum permissible ambient noise for audiometric rooms. Acoustical Society of America, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ANSI (1996) Specification for audiometers. ANSI S3.6. American National Standards Institute, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green DM (1993) A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes–no task. J Acoust Soc Am 93(4 Pt 1):2096–2105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Souza PE, Jenstad LM, Boike KT (2006) Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 119(1):41. doi: 10.1121/1.2108861 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansen M (2002) Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear 23(4):369–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bentler RA, Duve MR (2000) Comparison of hearing aids over the 20th century. Ear Hear 21(6):625–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.All India Institute of Speech and HearingMysoreIndia
  2. 2.Gadag District HospitalMalsamudraIndia

Personalised recommendations