CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 23(04): e433-e439
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688811
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

The Effect of Digital Noise Reduction on Annoyance and Speech Perception in Low and High Acceptable Noise Level Groups

1   Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing Mysuru, Mysore, Karnataka India
,
Navya Bilijagalemole Nanjundaswamy
1   Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing Mysuru, Mysore, Karnataka India
› Author Affiliations
Funding Source None.
Further Information

Publication History

21 December 2018

01 April 2019

Publication Date:
06 June 2019 (online)

Abstract

Introduction Studies have reported that although speech perception in noise was unaltered with and without digital noise reduction (DNR), the annoyance toward noise measured by acceptable noise level (ANL) was significantly improved by DNR with the range between 2.5 and 4.5 dB. It is unclear whether a similar improvement would be observed in those individuals who have an ANL ≥ 14 dB (predictive of poor hearing aid user) often rejects their aid because of annoyance toward noise.

Objectives (a) To determine the effect of activation of DNR on the improvement in the aided ANL from low- and high-ANL groups; and (b) to predict the change in ANL when DNR was activated.

Method Ten bilateral mild to severe sloping sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) participants in each of the low- and high-ANL groups were involved. These participants were bilaterally fitted with receiver in canal (RIC) hearing aids (Oticon, Smorum, Egedal, Denmark) with a DNR processor. Both SNR-50% (Signal to noise ratio (in dB) required to achieve 50 % speech recognition) and ANL were assessed in DNR-on and DNR-off listening conditions.

Results Digital noise reduction has no effect on SNR-50 in each group. The annoyance level was significantly reduced in the DNR-on than DNR-off condition in the low-ANL group. In the high-ANL group, a strong negative correlation was observed between the ANL in DNR off and a change in ANL after DNR was employed in the hearing aid (benefit). The benefit of DNR on annoyance can be effectively predicted by baseline-aided ANL by linear regression.

Conclusion Digital noise reduction reduced the annoyance level in the high-ANL group, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline-aided ANL value.

Research involving Human Participants

The present study was approved by the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing institutional research ethical committee and was performed in accordance with the ethical standard as laid down by the review board.


Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all of the individual participants included in the present study.


Ethical Approval

All of the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing institutional research committee and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


 
  • References

  • 1 Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 353-364
  • 2 Kochkin S. Consumers rate improvements sought in hearing instruments. Hear Rev 2002; 9 (11) 18-22
  • 3 Schum DJ. Noise-reduction circuitry in hearing aids:(2) Goals and current strategies. Hear J 2003; 56 (06) 32-33
  • 4 Bentler R, Chiou LK. Digital noise reduction: an overview. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (02) 67-82 . Epub 2006/09/09. doi: 10.1177/1084713806289514. PubMed PMID: 16959731; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4111515 .
  • 5 Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Edwards B, Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (10) 540-560
  • 6 Lowery KJ, Plyler PN. The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (08) 649-659
  • 7 Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (05) 270-277
  • 8 Wu Y-H, Stangl E. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (03) 333-341
  • 9 Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (05) 1001-1011
  • 10 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 (03) 679-685
  • 11 Plyler PN, Alworth LN, Rossini TP, Mapes KE. Effects of speech signal content and speaker gender on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (04) 243-248 . Doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.545082
  • 12 Freyaldenhoven MC, Plyler PN, Thelin JW, Muenchen RA. Acceptance of noise growth patterns in hearing aid users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (01) 126-135 . Doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/009)
  • 13 Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (02) 83-93 . Epub 2006/09/09. doi: 10.1177/1084713806289553. PubMed PMID: 16959732; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4111517 .
  • 14 Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (09) 626-639
  • 15 Powers T, Holube I, Wesselkamp M. The use of digital features to combat background noise. High Performance Hearing Solutions. 1999; 3: 36-39
  • 16 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 (01) 37-51
  • 17 Sairam V, Manjula P. Long term average speech spectrum in Kannada. University of Mysore; 2002
  • 18 Geetha C, Kumar K, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci 2014; 4 (01) 18-26
  • 19 Finney DJ. . Statistical method in biological assay: Charles Griffin: London; 1952
  • 20 Harkrider AW, Smith SB. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (08) 530-545