Search

The present study investigated the effects of monaural and binaural amplification on speech understanding in noise and acceptance of noise for 39 listeners with hearing impairment. Results demonstrated that speech understanding in noise improved with binaural amplification; however, acceptance of noise was not dependent on monaural or binaural amplification for most listeners. These results suggest that although two hearing aids maximize speech understanding ability in noise, most individuals' acceptance of noise, which is directly related to hearing aid use, may not be affected by the use of binaural amplification. It should be noted that monaural amplification resulted in greater acceptance of noise for some listeners, indicating that binaural amplification may negatively affect some individuals' willingness to wear hearing aids. It should also be noted that interaural differences in acceptance of noise might exist for some listeners; therefore, if only one hearing aid is fitted, monaural ANLs should be measured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acceptable noise level (ANL) measures a listener's reaction to background noise while listening to speech. Relations among hearing aid use and ANL, speech in noise (SPIN) scores, and listener characteristics (age, gender, pure-tone average) were investigated in 191 listeners with hearing impairment. Listeners were assigned to one of three groups based on patterns of hearing aid use: full-time use (whenever hearing aids are needed), part-time use (occasional use), or nonuse. Results showed that SPIN scores and listener characteristics were not related to ANL or hearing aid use. However, ANLs were related to hearing aid use. Specifically, full-time hearing aid users accepted more background noise than part-time users or nonusers, yet part-time users and nonusers could not be differentiated. Thus, a prediction of hearing aid use was examined by comparing part-time users and nonusers (unsuccessful hearing aid users) with full-time users (successful hearing aid users). Regression analysis determined that unaided ANLs could predict a listener's success of hearing aids with 85% accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated the effects of gain compensation and venting on front-to-back ratios (FBRs), speech understanding in noise, and acceptance of noise in 19 listeners with hearing impairment utilizing directional hearing instruments. The participants were separated into two groups based on degree of low-frequency hearing sensitivity. Subjects were fitted binaurally with Starkey Axent II programmable behind-the-ear hearing aids and full-shell earmolds (select-a-vent). Results demonstrated that gain compensation and venting significantly affected FBRs for both groups; however, acceptance of noise was not significantly affected by gain compensation or venting for either group. Results further demonstrated that speech understanding in noise was unaffected by venting but may be improved with the use of gain compensation for some listeners. Clinical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Available data indicate that, on some auditory tasks, individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD/ADD) perform more poorly than individuals without ADHD/ADD. Research also indicates that performance may improve with the use of stimulant medication. The present study (1) examined the effect of stimulant medication on acceptance of background noise in individuals with ADHD/ADD and (2) investigated the dependence of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in persons with ADHD/ADD. Fifteen normal hearing female college students with ADHD/ADD served as the participants. The participants were medicated in one session and unmedicated in the other session. Results showed that medication significantly increased the acceptance of background noise for individuals with ADHD/ADD. Results also indicated that acceptance of noise depends on speech presentation level, but the improvement in acceptance of noise was not dependent on medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An acceptable noise level (ANL) procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit was compared with masked speech reception threshold (SRT) and front-to-back ratio (FBR) procedures. ANL is the difference between the most comfortable listening level and the maximum accepted background noise level while listening to speech. Forty adult subjects wearing their own binaural hearing aids were evaluated in omnidirectional and directional modes. The subjects were fitted with a variety of hearing aids by clinical audiologists, independent of the study. For each procedure, speech and noise were presented through loudspeakers located at 0 degrees and 180 degrees azimuth, respectively. Mean ANL (3.5 dB), SRT (3.7 dB), and FBR (2.9 dB) directional benefits were not significantly different. The ANL and masked SRT benefits were significantly correlated. The ANL appears to be a quick, clinician/user friendly procedure for measuring hearing aid directional benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study investigated the relationship between acceptable noise levels (ANLs) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; R. M. Cox & G. C. Alexander, 1995). This study further examined the APHAB's ability to predict hearing aid use., Method: ANL and APHAB data were collected for 191 listeners with impaired hearing, separated into 3 groups based on hearing aid use: full-time, part-time, or nonuse., Results: Results demonstrated ANLs were not correlated with APHAB scores. Results further demonstrated 2 of the 4 APHAB subscales (Ease of Communication [EC] and Background Noise [BN]) predicted hearing aid success with 60% accuracy, which is 25% poorer than that observed using the ANL alone. When combining the ANL with the EC and BN subscales, accuracy of the prediction increased to 91%. Lastly, 3 of the 4 APHAB subscales (EC, BN, and Reverberation) enhanced the present prediction of hearing aid use for patients with mid-range ANLs., Conclusions: These results indicate that ANLs and APHAB scores provide unique information regarding hearing aid use. These results further indicate that the prediction can be enhanced by administering both the ANL and the EC and BN APHAB subscales. Lastly, some of the ambiguity of the prediction of hearing aid use for listeners with mid-range ANLs may be eliminated.

Purpose: To examine whether the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise could differentiate full-time, part-time, and nonusers of hearing aids and whether these effects could predict hearing aid use., Method: Participants were separated into 3 groups on the basis of hearing aid use: (a) full-time use, (b) part-time use, or (c) nonuse. Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were measured conventionally and at 8 fixed presentation levels. The effects of presentation level on ANL were determined by calculating global ANL (ANL averaged across presentation level) and ANL growth (slope of the ANL function)., Results: Global ANLs were smaller for full-time users than for part-time users and nonusers; however, global ANLs were not different for part-time users and nonusers. ANL growth differentiated full-time users from nonusers only. Conventional ANL predicted hearing aid use with 68% accuracy. Compared with conventional ANL, the accuracy of the prediction for global ANL and ANL growth decreased, and the accuracy of the prediction at presentation levels of 65 to 75 dB HL was maintained., Conclusions: Global ANL differentiated the hearing aid groups in the same manner as conventional ANL. The effects of presentation level on acceptance of noise did not considerably increase the accuracy of the prediction compared with conventional ANL. Clinical applications are discussed.

Purpose: To compare the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing., Method: Participants were listeners with normal (n = 24) and impaired (n = 46) hearing who were matched for conventional acceptable noise level (ANL). ANL was then measured at 8 fixed speech presentation levels (40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB HL) to determine if global ANL (i.e., ANL averaged across speech presentation levels) or ANL growth (i.e., the slope of the ANL function) varied between groups., Results: The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise were evaluated using global ANLs and ANL growth. Results showed global ANL and ANL growth were not significantly different for listeners with normal and impaired hearing, and neither ANL measure was related to pure-tone average for listeners with impaired hearing. Additionally, conventional ANLs were significantly correlated with both global ANLs and ANL growth for all listeners., Conclusion: These results indicate that the effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise are not related to hearing sensitivity. These results further indicate that a listener's conventional ANL was related to his or her global ANL and ANL growth.

The present study (1) assessed the reliability of the acceptable noise level (ANL) measure using speech-spectrum and speech-babble noises as the competing stimuli, and (2) investigated the relationship between ANL and preference for background sounds in 30 young adults with normal hearing sensitivity. Listeners were evaluated during three test sessions approximately one week apart. Results demonstrated that ANLs are highly reliable over short periods of time, independent of the background noise distraction. Mean ANLs, however, were affected by type of background noise distraction, indicating ANLs obtained using different competing stimuli should not be compared directly. Results further demonstrated that participants' ratings of preference for background sound were consistent over time; however, listeners' preference for background sound was not related to their acceptance of background noise (i.e., ANL). This may indicate listeners cannot accurately assess their ability to accept background sounds, at least with the questionnaire used in the present study.