This study aimed to compare functional hearing with the use ofa personal sound amplification product (PSAP) or a basic hearing aid (HA) among sensorineuralhearing impaired listeners. Subjects and Methods: Nineteen participants with mild-to-moderatesensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) (26-55 dB HL; pure-tone average, 0.5-4 kHz) wereprospectively included. No participants had prior experience with HAs or PSAPs. Audiograms,speech intelligibility in both quiet and noisy environments, speech quality, and preference wereassessed in three different listening conditions: unaided, with the HA, and with the PSAP. Results:The use of PSAP was associated with significant improvement in pure-tone thresholds at 1, 2,and 4 kHz compared to the unaided condition (all p<0.01). In the quiet environment, speechintelligibility was significantly improved after wearing a PSAP compared to the unaided condition(p<0.001), and this improvement was better than the result obtained with the HA. The PSAPalso demonstrated similar improvement in the most comfortable levels compared to those obtainedwith the HA (p<0.05). However, there was no significant improvement of speech intelligibilityin a noisy environment when wearing the PSAP (p=0.160). There was no significant differencein the reported speech quality produced by either device or in participant preference for thePSAP or HA. Conclusions: The current result suggests that PSAPs provide considerable benefitsto speech intelligibility in a quiet environment and can be a good alternative to compensatefor mild-to-moderate SNHL. J Audiol Otol 2020;24(2):91-98

OBJECTIVES: The clinical effects of the simultaneous application of nonlinear frequency compression and dichotic hearing on people with hearing impairments have not been evaluated previously. In this study, the clinical effects of the simultaneous application of these two techniques on the recognition of consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words with fricatives were evaluated using normal-hearing subjects and a hearing loss simulator operated in the severe hearing loss setting. METHODS: A total of 21 normal-hearing volunteers whose native language was English were recruited for this study, and two different hearing loss simulators, which were configured for severe hearing loss in the high-frequency range, were utilized. The subjects heard 82 English CVC words, and the word recognition score and response time were measured. RESULTS: The experimental results demonstrated that the simultaneous application of these two techniques showed almost even performance compared to the sole application of nonlinear frequency compression in a severe hearing loss setting. CONCLUSION: Though it is generally accepted that dichotic hearing can decrease the spectral masking thresholds of an hearing-impaired person, simultaneous application of the nonlinear frequency compression and dichotic hearing techniques did not significantly improve the recognition of words with fricatives compared to the sole application of nonlinear frequency compression in a severe hearing loss setting.
Dichotic Listening Tests ; Hearing Loss ; Hearing* ; Humans ; Masks ; Reaction Time ; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Consonants are uttered in the high frequency range in speech to bring out understanding of our language. As consonants convey most of the word information, listeners with high-frequency hearing loss find it hard to understand speech. Non-linear frequency compression (NLFC) technology compresses and moves higher frequencies into a lower frequency region where better residual hearing is present. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical effectiveness of NLFC technology in patients with high-frequency hearing loss. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Twelve ears representing patients with sloping, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss were involved in this study. Pure-tone audiometry and Threshold Equalizing Noise Test were conducted initially in all subjects. The subjects were tested in the counter-balanced order, and had two months of everyday experience with NLFC on/off before testing took place. A resting period intervened the two phases. Performance was repeatedly evaluated with Sound Field Audiometry, Word Recognition Score, Reception Threshold for Sentences and Korean version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. RESULTS: Cochlear dead region was detected on 4 kHz of both ears in only one subject. Each subject showed diverse performance and satisfaction with active NLFC condition. Typically, audibility of high-frequency pure-tones improved with NLFC-on condition. However, speech perception both in quiet and noise was not much improved when compared with NLFC-off condition. CONCLUSION: The NLFC technology could improve audibility in high-frequency, but failed to demonstrate benefits regarding speech perception. Further research is needed to validate the effectiveness of the NLFC technology especially in terms of speech intelligibility.
Audiometry ; Audiometry, Pure-Tone ; Ear ; Hearing ; Hearing Aids ; Hearing Loss, High-Frequency* ; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural ; Humans ; Noise ; Speech Intelligibility ; Speech Perception