Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids.

Fifty subjects with mild to moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss and prior experience with binaural amplification were evaluated at two sites (25 subjects at each site). Signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were measured using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) after each subject wore binaural in-the-ear hearing aids programmed for omnidirectional and dual-microphone performance, for 4 weeks. Both microphone conditions were evaluated under "ideal" (signal at 0 degrees; noise at 180 degrees) and "diffuse" (signal at 0 degrees; correlated noise at 45 , 135 degrees, 225 degrees, and 315 degrees) listening conditions. Results revealed statistically significant mean improvements in SNRs between 3.7 and 3.5 dB at Site I and 3.2 and 2.7 dB at Site II for the ideal and diffuse listening conditions, respectively, for the dual-microphones in comparison to the performance provided by the omnidirectional microphone.

Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids.

Differences in performance were evaluated between the Widex SENSO and several analog hearing aids currently worn by 50 hearing-impaired subjects. Subjects were initially fit with the SENSO using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for 1 week, the adjustable parameters were fine-tuned based on subjective comments. Differences in performance between the SENSO and the subjects' current hearing aids were assessed using the Speech Perception in Noise administered at overall levels of 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL; the Hearing in Noise Test in which the background noise was presented at 50, 65, and 80 dBA; the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; and two questionnaires relating to overall preference between the SENSO and the subjects' current hearing aids.

Differences in performance between Oticon MultiFocus Compact and ReSound BT2-E hearing aids.

Differences in performance were evaluated between binaural fittings of the Oticon MultiFocus (MF) and ReSound BT2-E on 25 hearing-impaired subjects across two sites. Subjects were initially fit using each manufacturer's algorithm and adjustments were made at 1 week based on subjects' responses to diary questions. Performance was assessed after a 4- to 6-week trial period with each hearing aid set using the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test administered at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire, loudness judgments of female connected discourse at 65 and 80 dB SPL, and an overall preference selection. The MF yielded significantly better SPIN scores at 50 and 65 dB SPL, while the BT2-E yielded a significantly better score at 80 dB SPL. No statistically significant differences were found in the APHAB benefit scores between the hearing aid sets, but both sets were significantly better than the subjects' own hearing aids on three of the four subscales. The MF produced slightly higher mean loudness judgments at both input levels than the BT2-E. Finally, 12 subjects preferred the BT2-E, 10 subjects preferred the MF, and three subjects stated no preference. The results are discussed in terms of audiogram effects on preference and effects of differences in signal processing approaches between the devices.

Differences and intersubject variability of loudness discomfort levels measured in sound pressure level and hearing level for TDH-50P and ER-3A earphones.

Loudness discomfort levels (LDLs) were measured in dB HL and SPL at discrete frequencies between 500 to 4000 Hz on 31 hearing-impaired ears using TDH-50P and ER-3A earphones. The results revealed no significant differences in the measured sound pressure level (SPL) between the two earphones at all test frequencies. However, with dB HL measurements, statistically significant differences were revealed at 1500 and 4000 Hz between earphone conditions. The results also revealed large intersubject differences in the measured LDL (HL and SPL) for both earphones. The results of this study highlight the difficulty in accurately predicting individual performance from averaged group data.

Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones.

Fifty subjects with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss and prior experience with amplification were evaluated at two sites (25 subjects at each site). Speech recognition in noise scores were measured using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for each subject while wearing binaural behind-the-ear hearing aids allowing switching between two fitting algorithms ("basic" and "party") and two microphone conditions (single microphone omnidirectional and dual-microphone directional). Results revealed an average improvement in signal-to-noise ration (SNR) of 7.4 to 8.5 dB at the two sites for the directional conditions in comparison to the omnidirectional conditions. No significant improvement in SNR was measured between the two fitting algorithms. In addition, the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB) (Site I) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) (Site II) were administered. Results revealed that the benefit scores for background noise and reduced cues (Site I) and background noise and aversiveness of sounds (Site II) were significantly higher than those reported in the established norms. Finally, 76 percent of the subjects of Site I reported that the experimental hearing aids provided "significantly better" or "better" performance than their current hearing aids.

Intersubject variability of real-ear sound pressure level: conventional and insert earphones.

Measures of the sound pressure level (SPL) near the eardrum were determined at discrete frequencies between 500 and 4000 Hz on 50 ears using TDH-39P and ER-3A earphones with the attenuator of an audiometer fixed at 90 dB HL. Results revealed significant differences in the measured SPL between the two earphones at all test frequencies. Results also revealed large intersubject differences in the SPL measured near the eardrum for both earphones. The results of this study highlight the large intersubject variability associated with measuring the SPL at the eardrum and point out the difficulty in accurately predicting individual performance from averaged group data.

High-frequency thresholds: sound suite versus hospital room.

Benefits of high-frequency audiometry in monitoring hearing sensitivity of patients administered ototoxic medications are well established. Thresholds obtained within a sound suite have been proven reliable. It may, however, often be necessary for the audiologist to evaluate the patient at bedside. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences are present between high-frequency thresholds measured in a sound suite versus thresholds measured in a hospital room. In addition, the test-retest reliability of high-frequency thresholds was determined when measured in a hospital room. For 25 normal hearing subjects, results revealed that significant differences were not observed between thresholds measured in a sound suite versus those measured in a typical hospital room. In addition, differences between the initial and repeated thresholds obtained in the hospital room were not significant, and the differences were, for the most part, within +/- 10 dB at all test frequencies.