Aided listener preferences in laboratory versus real-world environments
- PMID: 8194679
- DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199402000-00006
Aided listener preferences in laboratory versus real-world environments
Abstract
A wearable, fully digital, personal processing unit developed for the study of hearing aid fitting and digital signal-processing techniques was utilized in a preliminary study of hearing aid fitting validation. In a modified single-subject, multiple-baseline control design, 12 hearing-impaired listeners indicated their preferences for monaurally aided frequency response alternatives during an initial laboratory session, a real-world session, and a final laboratory session. Listeners' preferences, based on listening to connected speech, were stored in each environment by the personal processing unit. Within blocks of 3 each, subjects were time-lagged with respect to the number of trials to criterion. Subjects participated in 1 of 4 listening conditions, classified according to laboratory stimulus materials; speech recorded in an audiometric sound room in quiet or noise, and speech recorded in a reverberant room in quiet or noise. When compared with preferences obtained in the initial laboratory session, preferences obtained during the final laboratory session agreed better with those obtained in the real world. Overall, however, preferences under laboratory conditions were only fair predictors of preferences under everyday conditions. Results reveal the potential of harnessing the programming and storage capabilities of digital signal-processing technology in implementing new hearing aid fitting strategies.
Similar articles
-
The performance of an automatic acoustic-based program classifier compared to hearing aid users' manual selection of listening programs.Int J Audiol. 2018 Mar;57(3):201-212. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1392048. Epub 2017 Oct 25. Int J Audiol. 2018. PMID: 29069954
-
Evaluation of a "direct-comparison" approach to automatic switching in omnidirectional/directional hearing aids.J Am Acad Audiol. 2008 Oct;19(9):708-20. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19.9.6. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008. PMID: 19418710
-
Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: differing polar patterns and acoustic environments.Int J Audiol. 2006 Jun;45(6):319-30. doi: 10.1080/14992020600582109. Int J Audiol. 2006. PMID: 16777778
-
The influence of audiovisual ceiling performance on the relationship between reverberation and directional benefit: perception and prediction.Ear Hear. 2012 Sep-Oct;33(5):604-14. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31825641e4. Ear Hear. 2012. PMID: 22677815
-
A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli.Ear Hear. 1992 Oct;13(5):331-9. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199210000-00010. Ear Hear. 1992. PMID: 1487093
Cited by
-
Hearing Aid Self-Adjustment: Effects of Formal Speech-Perception Test and Noise.Trends Hear. 2020 Jan-Dec;24:2331216520930545. doi: 10.1177/2331216520930545. Trends Hear. 2020. PMID: 32552604 Free PMC article.
-
AudioSense: Enabling Real-time Evaluation of Hearing Aid Technology In-Situ.Proc IEEE Int Symp Comput Based Med Syst. 2013;2013:167-172. doi: 10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627783. Proc IEEE Int Symp Comput Based Med Syst. 2013. PMID: 25013874 Free PMC article.
-
Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments.Trends Amplif. 2012 Mar;16(1):49-58. doi: 10.1177/1084713811424884. Epub 2011 Dec 4. Trends Amplif. 2012. PMID: 22143874 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
