ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A WITHIN-SUBJECT COMPARISON OF HEARING AID PERFORMANCE IN NOISE BASED ON VERBAL RESPONSE TIMES
,
 
Sabrina Alonso 1, A-B,D,F
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
AUDIOLOGY, MUTUALIDAD ARGENTINA DE HIPOACUSICOS, Argentina
 
 
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
 
 
Submission date: 2022-04-25
 
 
Final revision date: 2022-07-16
 
 
Acceptance date: 2022-07-22
 
 
Publication date: 2022-09-30
 
 
Corresponding author
Horacio Cristiani   

AUDIOLOGY, MUTUALIDAD ARGENTINA DE HIPOACUSICOS, PERON 1654, C1037ACF, BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
 
 
J Hear Sci 2022;12(3):9-21
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Verbal response times (VRTs) are among the suggested markers for cognitive load during word recognition tasks. Measurements of VRT during hearing aid fitting can be a useful tool to obtain information about listening effort with different amplification parameters.

Material and methods:
A software program was developed to easily measure VRTs in speech recognition tests. The system plays 50 randomly chosen recorded words out of a set of 700 disyllables. Speech material can be presented together with pre-selected noise samples at different speech-to-noise ratios and processed with low-pass filters with selectable cut-off frequencies. The test is carried out in free field. A voice activity detector measures the time between the offset of the presented word and the onset of the repetition by the subject, which allows VRT and speech recognition scores to be quickly assessed. Tests were carried out with a group of 8 normal-hearing subjects to evaluate the effect of different filter parameters and a second group of 8 normal-hearing people to evaluate the effect of different speech-to-noise ratios on VRT. Finally, a group of 15 adult hearing-impaired subjects who used hearing aids were fitted under different conditions and the VRTs were compared between fittings.

Results:
Reducing the low-pass filter cutoff frequency or adding noise to the speech signal increased VRTs in normal hearing people, suggesting an inverse relationship between VRT and ease of listening. In the hearing-impaired group, VRTs with different fittings of the hearing aid showed differences that can be used as an indicator of listening effort.

Conclusions:
Adding a measurement of VRT to a regular word recognition test during hearing aid fitting could be useful for adjusting parameters or deciding between models or processing strategies, especially if recognition scores are high.

 
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Gatehouse S, Gordon J. Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol, 1990; 24(1): 63–8.
 
2.
Humes LE. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol, 1999; 10(1): 26–39.
 
3.
Picou EM, Ricketts TA. The effect of changing the secondary task in dual-task paradigms for measuring listening effort. Ear Hear, 2014; 35(6): 611–22.
 
4.
Hecker MH, Stevens KN, Williams CE. Measurements of reaction time in intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 1966; 39(6): 1188–9.
 
5.
Pratt RL. On the use of reaction time as a measure of intelligibility. Br J Audiol, 1981; 15(4): 253–5.
 
6.
Peelle JE. Listening effort: how the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear Hear, 2018; 39(2): 204–14.
 
7.
Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BWY, HUmes LE, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL). Ear Hear, 2016; 37: 5S–27S.
 
8.
Pals C, Sarampalis A, van Rijn H, Başkent D. Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort. J Acoust Soc Am, 2015; 138(3): EL187–92.
 
9.
Tato JM, Sarrail EC. Determinacin de las características del españolen Buenos Aires (Determination of the characteristics of Spanish in Buenos Aires). Ann Otorrinolaringol Ibero Am, 1974; 1(5): 15–29.
 
10.
Tato JM, Lorente Sanjurjo F, Bello J, Tato JM. Características acústicas de nuestro idioma (Acoustic characteristics of our language). Revista de la Federación Argentina de Sociedades de Otorrinolaringología, 2004; 1948–67.
 
11.
Park JS, Yoon JS, Seo YH, Jang GJ. Spectral energy-based voice activity detection for real-time voice interface. J Theor Appl Inf Tech, 2017; 95(17): 4304–12.
 
12.
Chen YW. Voice activity detection by spectral energy.
 
13.
 
14.
IRAM 4026: 1986. Cabinas audiométricas (Audiometric booths). Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certificación. https://catalogo.iram.org.ar/#....
 
15.
Cristiani HE, Serra V, Guinguis M. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test in “Rioplatense” Spanish, based on Quick – SIN®. J Phonet Audiol, 2020; 6(1): 145.
 
16.
McCreery RW, Spratford M, Kirby B, Brennan M. Individual differences in language and working memory affect children’s speech recognition in noise. Int J Audiol, 2017, 56(5): 306–15.
 
17.
Carolan PJ, Heinrich A, Munro KJ, Millman RE. Quantifying the effects of motivation on listening effort: a systematic review and meta-analysis. OSF Preprints, 2021.
 
18.
Helfer KS, Freyman RL. Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 2014; 136(2): 748–59.
 
19.
Helfer KS, Merchant GR, Wasiuk PA. Age-related changes in objective and subjective speech perception in complex listening environments. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2017; 60: 3009–18.
 
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top