PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.
STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.
RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.
CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.
Method: Quasi-experimental and repeated-measures study designs were used in this study. Twenty-six adults with normal hearing (17 females, 9 males) participated. ABRs were acquired from the study participants at 3 intensity levels (80, 60, and 40 dB nHL), 3 frequencies (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz), 2 electrode montages (ipsilateral and vertical), and 2 stimuli (NB LS CE-Chirp and tone-burst) using 2 stopping criteria (fixed averages at 4,000 sweeps and F test at multiple points = 3.1).
Results: Wave V amplitudes were only 19%-26% larger for the vertical recordings than the ipsilateral recordings in both the ABRs obtained from the NB LS CE-Chirp and tone-burst stimuli. The mean differences in the F test at multiple points values and the residual noise levels between the ABRs obtained from the vertical and ipsilateral montages were statistically not significant. In addition, the ABR elicited from the NB LS CE-Chirp was significantly larger (up to 69%) than those from the tone-burst, except at the lower intensity level.
Conclusion: Both the ipsilateral and vertical montages can be used to record ABR to the NB LS CE-Chirp because of the small enhancement in the wave V amplitude provided by the vertical montage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EEG signal was used as a brain response signal, which was evoked by two auditory stimuli (Tones and Consonant Vowels stimulus). The study was carried out on Malaysians (Malay and Chinese) with normal hearing and with hearing loss. A ranking process for the subjects' EEG data and the nonlinear features was used to obtain the maximum classification accuracy.
RESULTS: The study formulated the classification of Normal Hearing Ethnicity Index and Sensorineural Hearing Loss Ethnicity Index. These indices classified the human ethnicity according to brain auditory responses by using numerical values of response signal features. Three classification algorithms were used to verify the human ethnicity. Support Vector Machine (SVM) classified the human ethnicity with an accuracy of 90% in the cases of normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL); the SVM classified with an accuracy of 84%.
CONCLUSION: The classification indices categorized or separated the human ethnicity in both hearing cases of normal hearing and SNHL with high accuracy. The SVM classifier provided a good accuracy in the classification of the auditory brain responses. The proposed indices might constitute valuable tools for the classification of the brain responses according to the human ethnicity.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare the magnitude of gender difference in speech-evoked auditory brainstem response results between monaural and binaural stimulations.
METHODS: A total of 34 healthy Asian adults aged 19-30 years participated in this comparative study. Eighteen of them were females (mean age=23.6±2.3 years) and the remaining sixteen were males (mean age=22.0±2.3 years). For each subject, speech-evoked auditory brainstem response was recorded with the synthesized syllable /da/ presented monaurally and binaurally.
RESULTS: While latencies were not affected (p>0.05), the binaural stimulation produced statistically higher speech-evoked auditory brainstem response amplitudes than the monaural stimulation (p<0.05). As revealed by large effect sizes (d>0.80), substantive gender differences were noted in most of speech-evoked auditory brainstem response peaks for both stimulation modes.
CONCLUSION: The magnitude of gender difference between the two stimulation modes revealed some distinct patterns. Based on these clinically significant results, gender-specific normative data are highly recommended when using speech-evoked auditory brainstem response for clinical and future applications. The preliminary normative data provided in the present study can serve as the reference for future studies on this test among Asian adults.
METHODS: Twenty-nine healthy Malaysian subjects (14 males and 15 females) aged 19 to 30 years participated in this study. After measuring the head circumference, speech-ABR was recorded by using synthesized syllable /da/ from the right ear of each participant. Speech-ABR peaks amplitudes, peaks latencies, and composite onset measures were computed and analyzed.
RESULTS: Significant gender disparities were noted in the transient component but not in the sustained component of speech-ABR. Statistically higher V/A amplitudes and less steeper V/A slopes were found in females. These gender differences were partially affected after controlling for the head size.
CONCLUSIONS: Head size is not the main contributing factor for gender disparities in speech-ABR outcomes. Gender-specific normative data can be useful when recording speech-ABR for clinical purposes.
METHODS: We developed a hybrid algorithm that combines features of empirical mode decomposition (EMD) with principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce the BCG artefact. The algorithm does not require extra electrocardiogram (ECG) or electrooculogram (EOG) recordings to extract the BCG artefact.
RESULTS: The method was tested with both simulated and real EEG data of 11 participants. From the simulated data, the similarity index between the extracted BCG and the simulated BCG showed the effectiveness of the proposed method in BCG removal. On the other hand, real data were recorded with two conditions, i.e. resting state (eyes closed dataset) and task influenced (event-related potentials (ERPs) dataset). Using qualitative (visual inspection) and quantitative (similarity index, improved normalized power spectrum (INPS) ratio, power spectrum, sample entropy (SE)) evaluation parameters, the assessment results showed that the proposed method can efficiently reduce the BCG artefact while preserving the neuronal signals.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Compared with conventional methods, namely, average artefact subtraction (AAS), optimal basis set (OBS) and combined independent component analysis and principal component analysis (ICA-PCA), the statistical analyses of the results showed that the proposed method has better performance, and the differences were significant for all quantitative parameters except for the power and sample entropy.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method does not require any reference signal, prior information or assumption to extract the BCG artefact. It will be very useful in circumstances where the reference signal is not available.