Cox R M, Alexander G C
Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Memphis State University, Tennessee.
Ear Hear. 1991 Apr;12(2):127-39. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199104000-00009.
Hearing aid benefit was measured for three matched groups of eleven hearing-impaired subjects, each serving in one typical listening environment. Benefit was quantified in terms of improvement in intelligibility score for the Connected Speech Test. Each subject was individually fitted with three hearing aids, differing in nominal frequency response slope by a total of 8 dB/octave. Research questions centered on the amount of benefit typically realized in everyday environments and the interactions of this benefit with frequency response and/or visual cues. Results revealed: (1) mean benefit in a living-room type setting was about 24% and significantly greater than in a reverberant setting (7%) and a noisy setting (-1%); (2) despite the relatively large mean difference in benefit between the reverberant and noisy environments, the difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.05); (3) the addition of visual cues did not change hearing aid benefit in any tested environment; (4) there was no significant overall trend for any of the three different frequency-response slopes to give superior benefit in any environment; (5) 76% of the subjects achieved significantly different benefit (p less than 0.05) in at least one hearing aid condition when data were considered on an individual basis; and (6) articulation indices in the aided conditions did not successfully predict the observed within-subject benefit differences. Benefit was significantly related to speech reception threshold in the living-room environment. However, in the less favorable environments, benefit and hearing loss were not related despite the fact that benefit varied considerably across subjects.
对三组各有11名听力受损受试者的匹配组进行了助听器效益测试,每组受试者都在一种典型的聆听环境中进行测试。效益通过连贯言语测试中清晰度得分的提高来量化。为每名受试者单独佩戴了三款助听器,其标称频率响应斜率的差异总计为8 dB/倍频程。研究问题集中在日常环境中通常能实现的效益量,以及这种效益与频率响应和/或视觉线索的相互作用。结果显示:(1) 在客厅类型的环境中,平均效益约为24%,显著高于混响环境(7%)和嘈杂环境(-1%);(2) 尽管混响环境和嘈杂环境之间的平均效益差异相对较大,但该差异无统计学意义(p大于0.05);(3) 在任何测试环境中,添加视觉线索都不会改变助听器效益;(4) 三种不同频率响应斜率中的任何一种在任何环境中都没有显著的总体趋势能带来更优的效益;(5) 当基于个体考虑数据时,76%的受试者在至少一种助听器条件下实现了显著不同的效益(p小于0.05);(6) 助听条件下的清晰度指数未能成功预测观察到的受试者内效益差异。在客厅环境中,效益与言语接受阈值显著相关。然而,在不太有利的环境中,尽管不同受试者的效益差异很大,但效益与听力损失并无关联。