van Toor Thijs, Verschuure Hans
Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Dijkzigt Hospital, Department of Audiology-ENT, The Netherlands.
Int J Audiol. 2002 Oct;41(7):379-94. doi: 10.3109/14992020209090415.
The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effect of different settings with regard to speech intelligibility in noise both objectively and subjectively and thus determine a favoured setting of compression time parameters, pre-set program (high-frequency emphasis) or combination for each individual user in a prospective study. Another objective was to evaluate the relationship between patient characteristics (e.g. slope of hearing loss) and favoured settings. In total, 38 subjects divided over five audiological centres were fitted with the Philips Spaceline D71-40 BTE digital hearing aid. Subjects were asked to compare three predefined compression algorithms with different time constants, slow (indicated by the manufacturer as AVC), intermediate (NORMAL) and fast (SYLLABIC) over two 4-week periods using the intermediate setting in both comparisons and randomizing over the fast and slow conditions. A randomization determined whether a subject started with the comfort-oriented pre-set program (AUTO) or the speech intelligibility-oriented setting with high-frequency emphasis (SPIN). In a third 4-week period, the pre-sets AUTO and SPIN were compared using the setting of the compression time constants that gave the best results during the first two periods. Comparisons were made using a standard speech-in-noise test with three types of noise: continuous speaker noise, modulated ICRA-4 noise, and car noise. The patients were also asked to fill in a Dutch translation and adaptation of the APHAB questionnaire to indicate their impression of performance. The results indicate that no compression algorithm, pre-set or combination is favoured overall. The largest improvement in speech-in-noise scores was found with syllabic compression. The advantageous effect of high-frequency emphasis after optimization of compression timing is small. The APHAB showed that users tend to prefer the SPIN setting. We found no relationship between favoured compression or pre-set and the degree or steepness of the hearing loss User preference and best performance in noise do not always coincide. Acclimatization may play a role. It could be advisable to let a user listen to a subjectively less favoured condition for at least some time if an optimal setting for speech intelligibility in noise is preferred over comfort.
本研究的目的是从客观和主观两方面评估不同设置对噪声中言语可懂度的影响,从而在前瞻性研究中为每个个体用户确定压缩时间参数、预设程序(高频增强)或组合的最佳设置。另一个目的是评估患者特征(如听力损失斜率)与最佳设置之间的关系。共有38名受试者分布在五个听力中心,佩戴了飞利浦Spaceline D71 - 40 BTE数字助听器。受试者被要求在两个为期4周的时间段内,使用中间设置,并在快速和慢速条件下随机比较三种具有不同时间常数的预定义压缩算法,即慢速(制造商标注为AVC)、中间(NORMAL)和快速(SYLLABIC)。通过随机化确定受试者是从以舒适度为导向的预设程序(AUTO)开始,还是从以言语可懂度为导向的高频增强设置(SPIN)开始。在第三个为期4周的时间段内,使用在前两个时间段中产生最佳效果的压缩时间常数设置,比较预设的AUTO和SPIN。使用标准的噪声中言语测试,采用三种类型的噪声进行比较:连续说话者噪声、调制的ICRA - 4噪声和汽车噪声。还要求患者填写荷兰语翻译并改编的APHAB问卷,以表明他们对性能的印象。结果表明,总体上没有哪种压缩算法、预设或组合是最佳的。在噪声中言语得分的最大改善是在音节压缩时发现的。压缩定时优化后高频增强的有利效果很小。APHAB显示用户倾向于选择SPIN设置。我们发现最佳压缩或预设与听力损失的程度或陡度之间没有关系。用户偏好和在噪声中的最佳性能并不总是一致的。适应可能起作用。如果相比于舒适度,更倾向于噪声中言语可懂度的最佳设置,那么让用户至少在一段时间内听一个主观上不太喜欢的条件可能是明智的。