Assessment of acceptable noise level in unilateral hearing aid users
Background and Aim: It is well known that hearing aid fitting is an effective approach to improve the communication ability of hearing-impaired people. In the past, most of the hearing aids were fitted unilaterally rather than bilaterally. Whereas the unilateral hearing aid fitting improves verbal communication partially, it causes late-onset auditory deprivation. The main aim of this study is to investigate the ANL for each ear among the users with unilateral hearing aid experience.
Methods: A total of 23 participants were recruited (14 females, 9 males). The mean age was 74.65 years (ranged from 41 to 83). All subjects had bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. The most comfortable level (MCL), Background Noise Level (BNL), and acceptable noise level (ANL) were measured for ear with amplification experience and ear without experience.
Results: MCL, BNL and ANL in the aided ear was 82.22, 73.48 and 8.74 respectively, in addition in the unaided ear the results for MCL, BNL and ANL was 81.78, 72.13 and 9.65 respectively. Comparing the mean values of MCL, BNL and ANL between two ears showed no significant difference.
Conclusion: There was not any difference for BNL and ANL measures.
2. Byrne D, Noble W. Optimizing sound localization with hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 1998;3(2):51-73. doi: 10.1177/108471389800300202
3. Shargorodsky J, Curhan GC, Farwell WR. Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus among US adults. Am J Med. 2010;123(8):711-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.02.015
4. Nelson JJ, Chen K. The relationship of tinnitus, hyper¬acusis, and hearing loss. Ear Nose Throat J. 2004;83(7):472-6. doi: 10.1177/014556130408300713
5. Bernarding C, Strauss DJ, Hannemann R, Latzel M, Seidler H, Jobst U, et al., editors. The effects of age and hearing impairment on the extraction of listening effort correlates. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE; 2011: IEEE.
6. Na W, Kim G, Kim G, Han W, Kim J. Effects of hearing loss on speech recognition under distracting conditions and working memory in the elderly. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:1175-81. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S142962
7. Lin FR, Metter EJ, O’Brien RJ, Resnick SM, Zonderman AB, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol. 2011;68(2):214-20. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.362
8. Mencher GT, Davis A. Bilateral or unilateral amplification: is there a difference? A brief tutorial. Int J Audiol. 2006;45 Suppl 1:S3-11. doi: 10.1080/14992020600782568
9. Eddins DA. Hearing aids. Second edition, Harvey Dillon. Ear Hear. 2013;34(6):813. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000436254.15629.5b
10. Carhart R. Monaural and binaural discrimination against competing sentences. J Acoust Soc Am. 1965;37(6):120-5. doi: 10.1121/1.1939552
11. Harris JD. Monaural and binaural speech intelligibility and the stereophonic effect based upon temporal cues. Laryngoscope. 1965;75:428-46. doi: 10.1288/00005537-196503000-00003
12. Silman S, Gelfand SA, Silverman CA. Late‐onset auditory deprivation: effects of monaural versus binaural hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;76(5):1357-62. doi: 10.1121/1.391451
13. Robinson K, Gatehouse S. Changes in intensity dis¬crimination following monaural long‐term use of a hearing aid. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97(2):1183-90. doi: 10.1121/1.412230
14. Robinson K, Gatehouse S. The time course of effects on intensity discrimination following monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;99(2):1255-8. doi: 10.1121/1.414637
15. Munro KJ, Trotter JH. Preliminary evidence of asy¬mmetry in uncomfortable loudness levels after unilateral hearing aid experience: evidence of functional plasticity in the adult auditory system. Int J Audiol. 2006;45(12):684-8. doi: 10.1080/14992020600640444
16. Olsen SØ. The relationship between the uncomfortable loudness level and the acoustic reflex threshold for pure tones in normally-hearing and impaired listeners--a meta-analysis. Audiology. 1999;38(2):61-8. doi: 10.3109/00206099909073004
17. Borg E. On the neuronal organization of the acoustic middle ear reflex. A physiological and anatomical study. Brain Res. 1973;49(1):101-23. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(73)90404-6
18. Munro KJ, Pisareva NY, Parker DJ, Purdy SC. Asymmetry in the auditory brainstem response following experience of monaural amplification. Neuroreport. 2007;18(17):1871-4. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f1b003
19. Hwang J, Wu C, Chen J, Liu T. Changes in activation of the auditory cortex following long-term amplification: an fMRI study. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006;126(12):1275-80. doi: 10.1080/00016480600794503
20. Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(3):679-85. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3403.679
21. Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener's gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14(7):372-82.
22. Franklin CA, White LJ, Franklin TC. Relationship between loudness tolerance and the acceptance of background noise for young adults with normal hearing. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;114(3):717-22. doi:10.2466/24.22.PMS.114.3.717-722
23. Harkrider AW, Smith SB. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16(8):530-45. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16.8.2
24. Franklin CA, Thelin JW, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(2):141-6. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.2.6
25. Brännström KJ, Zunic E, Borovac A, Ibertsson T. Acceptance of background noise, working memory capacity, and auditory evoked potentials in subjects with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(7):542-52. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.23.7.6
26. Freyaldenhoven MC, Thelin JW, Plyler PN, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB. Effect of stimulant medication on the acceptance of background noise in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disor¬der. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16(9):677-86. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16.9.5
27. Tampas JW, Harkrider AW. Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1548-61. doi: 10.1121/1.2167147
28. Harkrider AW, Tampas JW. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(9):667-76. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.9.6
29. Nichols AC, Gordon-Hickey S. The relationship of locus of control, self-control, and acceptable noise levels for young listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(4):353-9. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.645074
30. Brännström KJ, Olsen SØ. The acceptable noise level and the pure-tone audiogram. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(1):80-7. doi: 10.1044/2016_AJA-16-0033
31. Cherry EC. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am. 1953;25(5):975-9. doi: 10.1121/1.1907229
32. Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, Wilbraham K, Cox R, et al. An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;96(4):2108-20. doi: 10.1121/1.410152
33. American National Standards Institute. Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guide¬lines for schools, part 1: Permanent schools (ANSI S12. 60-2010). New York, NY: Author; 2010.