Samuel B. Burchfield

Relationship between acceptance of background noise and hearing aid use

Background noise produces complaints among hearing‐aid users, however speech‐perception‐in‐noise does not predict hearing‐aid use. It is possible that hearing‐aid users are complaining about the presence of background noise and not about speech perception. To test this possibility, acceptance of background noise is being investigated as a predictor of hearing‐aid use. Acceptance of background noise is determined by having subjects select their most comfortable listening level (MCL) for a story. Next, speech‐babble is added and the subjects select the maximum background noise level (BNL) which is acceptable while listening to and following the story. The difference between the MCL and the BNL is the acceptable noise level (ANL), all in dB. ANLs are being compared with hearing‐aid use, subjective impressions of benefit (APHAB), speech perception in background noise (SPIN) scores, and audiometric data. Individuals who accept higher levels of background noise are more successful users than individuals who acc...

Relation between measures of speech‐in‐noise performance and measures of efferent activity

Individual differences in auditory perceptual abilities in noise are well documented but the factors causing such variability are unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if individual differences in responses measured from the auditory efferent system were correlated to individual variations in speech‐in‐noise performance. The relation between behavioral performance on three speech‐in‐noise tasks and two objective measures of the efferent auditory system were examined in thirty normal‐hearing, young adults. Two of the speech‐in‐noise tasks measured an acceptable noise level, the maximum level of speech‐babble noise that a subject is willing to accept while listening to a story. For these, the acceptable noise level was evaluated using both an ipsilateral (story and noise in same ear) and a contralateral (story and noise in opposite ears) paradigm. The third speech‐in‐noise task evaluated speech recognition using monosyllabic words presented in competing speech babble. Auditory efferent activit...

Acceptance of background noise as a function of speech presentation level

The acceptance of background noise while listening to speech (ANL) at different speech presentation levels was assessed. Twenty listeners (10 male) between 18–30 years with normal hearing listened to a narrative at speech presentation levels of 20, 34, 48, 62, and 76 dB HL, then adjusted the background noise to the highest intensity level that they would be willing to accept for an extended listening period. The ANL is the intensity of the speech presentation level minus the intensity level of the background noise. The group mean ANLs for presentation levels of 20, 34, 48, 62, and 76 dB HL were 10.60, 14.25, 17.10, 21.80, and 24.55 dB, respectively. The group mean ANLs differ by approximately three and one half decibels between each presentation level. This difference between adjacent speech presentation levels is representative of a linear function. The average MCL was 43 dB HL with a standard deviation of 6.7 dB. The group mean ANL for speech presented at MCL was 15.5 dB with a standard deviation of 7.2...

Comparison of acceptance of background noise and speech reception threshold in quantifying the hearing aid directivity benefit

Hearing aid directivity benefit was compared as improvement in acceptance of background noise and speech reception threshold (SRT). Forty adult subjects were tested wearing binaural hearing aids in omnidirectional and directional listening conditions. Acceptance of background noise was determined by having subjects select their most comfortable listening level (MCL) for a story delivered from a loudspeaker (0). Next, speech babble was added (180) and the subjects selected the maximum background noise level (BNL) which was acceptable while listening to and following the story. The MCL minus the BNL yielded the acceptable noise level (ANL), all in dB. The difference between the ANL for the omni‐directional and directional conditions is the directivity benefit. The SRT was determined by delivering spondaic words (0) at the subjects MCL. Next, speech babble was delivered (180) and adjusted until the subject could repeat 50% of the spondees. The difference between the SRT for the omni‐directional and direction...