Search

Recent studies have shown that activating the noise reduction scheme in hearing aids results in a smaller peak pupil dilation (PPD), indicating reduced listening effort, at 50% and 95% correct sentence recognition with a 4-talker masker. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of the noise reduction scheme (on or off) on PPD and sentence recognition across a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) from +16 dB to -12 dB and two masker types (4-talker and stationary noise). Relatively low PPDs were observed at very low (-12 dB) and very high (+16 dB to +8 dB) SNRs presumably due to 'giving up' and 'easy listening', respectively. The maximum PPD was observed with SNRs at approximately 50% correct sentence recognition. Sentence recognition with both masker types was significantly improved by the noise reduction scheme, which corresponds to the shift in performance from SNR function at approximately 5 dB toward a lower SNR. This intelligibility effect was accompanied by a corresponding effect on the PPD, shifting the peak by approximately 4 dB toward a lower SNR. In addition, with the 4-talker masker, when the noise reduction scheme was active, the PPD was smaller overall than that when the scheme was inactive. We conclude that with the 4-talker masker, noise reduction scheme processing provides a listening effort benefit in addition to any effect associated with improved intelligibility. Thus, the effect of the noise reduction scheme on listening effort incorporates more than can be explained by intelligibility alone, emphasizing the potential importance of measuring listening effort in addition to traditional speech reception measures., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To undertake a systematic review of available evidence on the effect of hearing impairment and hearing aid amplification on listening effort. Two research questions were addressed: Q1) does hearing impairment affect listening effort? and Q2) can hearing aid amplification affect listening effort during speech comprehension?, Design: English language articles were identified through systematic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO from inception to August 2014. References of eligible studies were checked. The Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study design strategy was used to create inclusion criteria for relevance. It was not feasible to apply a meta-analysis of the results from comparable studies. For the articles identified as relevant, a quality rating, based on the 2011 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group guidelines, was carried out to judge the reliability and confidence of the estimated effects., Results: The primary search produced 7017 unique hits using the keywords: hearing aids OR hearing impairment AND listening effort OR perceptual effort OR ease of listening. Of these, 41 articles fulfilled the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study design selection criteria of: experimental work on hearing impairment OR hearing aid technologies AND listening effort OR fatigue during speech perception. The methods applied in those articles were categorized into subjective, behavioral, and physiological assessment of listening effort. For each study, the statistical analysis addressing research question Q1 and/or Q2 was extracted. In seven articles more than one measure of listening effort was provided. Evidence relating to Q1 was provided by 21 articles that reported 41 relevant findings. Evidence relating to Q2 was provided by 27 articles that reported 56 relevant findings. The quality of evidence on both research questions (Q1 and Q2) was very low, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group guidelines. We tested the statistical evidence across studies with nonparametric tests. The testing revealed only one consistent effect across studies, namely that listening effort was higher for hearing-impaired listeners compared with normal-hearing listeners (Q1) as measured by electroencephalographic measures. For all other studies, the evidence across studies failed to reveal consistent effects on listening effort., Conclusion: In summary, we could only identify scientific evidence from physiological measurement methods, suggesting that hearing impairment increases listening effort during speech perception (Q1). There was no scientific, finding across studies indicating that hearing aid amplification decreases listening effort (Q2). In general, there were large differences in the study population, the control groups and conditions, and the outcome measures applied between the studies included in this review. The results of this review indicate that published listening effort studies lack consistency, lack standardization across studies, and have insufficient statistical power. The findings underline the need for a common conceptual framework for listening effort to address the current shortcomings.

Objectives: Previous work has shown that individuals with lower working memory demonstrate reduced intelligibility for speech processed with fast-acting compression amplification. This relationship has been noted in fluctuating noise, but the extent of noise modulation that must be present to elicit such an effect is unknown. This study expanded on previous study by exploring the effect of background noise modulations in relation to compression speed and working memory ability, using a range of signal to noise ratios., Design: Twenty-six older participants between ages 61 and 90 years were grouped by high or low working memory according to their performance on a reading span test. Speech intelligibility was measured for low-context sentences presented in background noise, where the noise varied in the extent of amplitude modulation. Simulated fast- or slow-acting compression amplification combined with individual frequency-gain shaping was applied to compensate for the individual's hearing loss., Results: Better speech intelligibility scores were observed for participants with high working memory when fast compression was applied than when slow compression was applied. The low working memory group behaved in the opposite way and performed better under slow compression compared with fast compression. There was also a significant effect of the extent of amplitude modulation in the background noise, such that the magnitude of the score difference (fast versus slow compression) depended on the number of talkers in the background noise. The presented signal to noise ratios were not a significant factor on the measured intelligibility performance., Conclusion: In agreement with earlier research, high working memory allowed better speech intelligibility when fast compression was applied in modulated background noise. In the present experiment, that effect was present regardless of the extent of background noise modulation.