Gain measurement from two methods of NAL- NL2 and DSLm[i/o], using two Persian fricative consonants in coupler
Background and Aim: As the most perceived and articulated errors of hearing aid users occur in high frequency speech phonemes, this study aimed to find a way to amplify and reconstruct the errors. Thus, the study first prepared a recorded form of two Persian fricative consonants as stimulus; then, the rate of the prescribed gain of the two methods of National Acoustic Laboratories-Nonlinear 2 (NAL-NL2) and the Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output (DSLm[i/o]) were compared.
Methods: This study was performed using eight programmed hearing aids for severe sensorineural hearing loss in three configurations: flat, raising, and sloping. After fitting the hearing aids upon the NAL-NL2 and DSLm[i/o] methods, the rate of their gain for the consonants of /s/ and /f/, using Affinity 2.0 analyzer, was determined in 2 cc coupler at the three different levels.
Results: In the flat and raising audiograms, the prescribed gain of DSLm[i/o] for the two consonants in all three speakers and intensity level was more than NAL-NL2 (p< 0.05). In the sloping audiogram, the significance of the difference of prescribed gain of these methods disappeared; however, the DSL m[i/o] in the low frequency area was higher than NAL-NL2 (p< 0.001).
Conclusion: The average prescribed gain of methods in the three frequency regions for the two consonants is different, and the prescribed gain of DSLm[i/o] in all frequencies, especially in the low frequency areas, is higher than NAL-NL2.
2. Robinshaw HM. The pattern of development from non-communicative behaviour to language by hearing impaired and hearing infants. Br J Audiol. 1996;30(3):177-98.
3. Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear. 2002;23(4):316-24.
4. Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(4):2183-90.
5. Füllgrabe C, Baer T, Stone MA, Moore BC. Preliminary evaluation of a method for fitting hearing aids with extended bandwidth. Int J Audiol. 2010;49(10):741-53.
6. Killion MC, Tillman TW. Evaluation of high-fidelity hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res. 1982;25(1):15-25.
7. Ricketts TA, Dittberner AB, Johnson EE. High-frequency amplification and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(1):160-72.
8. Moore BC, Füllgrabe C, Stone MA. Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):360-71.
9. Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif. 2004;8(3):83-124.
10. Seewald R, Moodie S, Scollie S, Bagatto M. The DSL method for pediatric hearing instrument fitting: historical perspective and current issues. Trends Amplif. 2005;9(4):145-57.
11. Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(1):37-51.
12. Stelmachowicz PG, Kopun J, Mace AL, Lewis DE. Measures of hearing aid gain for real speech. Ear Hear. 1996;17(6):520-7.
13. Souza PE. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Hear. 2002;6(4):131-65.
14. Henning RW, Bentler R. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals. Ear Hear. 2005;26(4):409-22.
15. Jarollahi F. A practical guide to Tavana test. 1st ed. Tehran: Pars book; 2010. Persian.
16. Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B. Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol. 2010;49(12):891-903.
17. Garolla LP, Scollie SD, Martinelli Iório MC. Development of the speech test signal in Brazilian Portuguese for real-ear measurement. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(8):572-6.
18. Keidser G, Dillon H, Convery E, O'Brien A. Differences between speech-shaped test stimuli in analyzing systems and the effect on measured hearing aid gain. Ear Hear. 2010;31(3):437-40.
19. Lewis DE, Eiten LR. Hearing instrument selection and fitting in children. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser RJ, editors. Audiology treatment. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers Inc; 2007.p.94-119.
20. Samare Y. Phonology of Persian language. 2nd ed. Tehran: Markaz Nashre Daneshgahi; 2000. Persian.
21. Yadav N, Kumar SB, Annapurna SB, Vinila VJ. The effect of stimulus bandwidth on perception of fricative /s/ among individuals with different degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Theory and Practice in Language Studies (TPLS). 2011;1(12):1679-87.
22. Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values: How accurate are they? Hear J. 2003;56(7):26,28,32,34.
23. Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(7):441-59.
24. Rajkumar S, Muttan S, Jaya V, Vignesh SS. Comparative analysis of different prescriptive formulae used in the evaluation of real ear insertion gain for digital hearing aids. Universal Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 2013;1(2):32-41.
25. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2012.
Copyright (c) 2015 Auditory and Vestibular Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.