title: A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.
abstract: In this clinical study, 110 patients seen at three different clinical facilities were fit binaurally with linear, in-the-canal (ITC) hearing aids. All patients were new hearing aid users. Each of the hearing aids was equipped with an adjustable control that could be set by one of the audiologists (Audiologist A) at each site to convert it from a linear instrument to an experimental nonlinear one with automatic reduction of low-frquency gain at high input levels (or base increase at low levels, BILL). Both the patient and the audiologist performing the outcome testing at each site (Audiologist B) were blind as to the present setting of the hearing aid. Each participant was enrolled in the study for a total of 12 weeks, with the hearing aid set to either the linear or BILL-processing mode of operation for the first 8 weeks and the opposite setting for a subsequent 4-week period. In summary, this was a prospective, doubleblind, crossover study of 110 new hearing aid users. Outcome measures focused on hearing-aid benefit and included both objective and subjective measures. Objective measures were derived from scores on the Northwestern University Auditory Test NO. 6 (NU-6) and the Connected Speech Test (CST) obtained for all possible combinations of two speech presentation levels (60 and 75 dB SPL) two types of background noise (cafeteria noise and multitalker babble), and two signal-to-noise ratios (+5 and +10 dB). Subjective outcome measures included magnitude estimation of listening effort (MELE), the abbreviated form of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI), and estimations of hearing-aid usage based on daily-use logs kept by the participants. All of these measures were used to evaluate the benefit provided by linear amplification and the benefit resulting from the experimental BILL processing. Participant preferences for the experimental BILL-processing scheme or linear processing were also examined by using a paired-comparison task at the end of the study. Results were analyzed separately for three subgroups of patients (mild, moderate, severe) formed on the basis of their average hearing loss at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. In all three subgroups, significant improvement in performance was observed for linear amplification and for BILL processing when compared to unaided performance. There were no significant differences in aided performance, however, between linear processing and the experimental BILL processing.
authors.affiliation: Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.
authors.forename: L E
authors.initials: LE
authors.lastname: Humes
authors.forename: L A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Christensen
authors.forename: F H
authors.initials: FH
authors.lastname: Bess
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Hedley-Williams
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006310:Hearing Aids; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013067:Speech Perception