Laura Hartog

Measures of speech intelligibility in noise show limited correspondence with difficulties people with hearing loss report from daily life. This mismatch suggests that standard measurement conditions do not sufficiently capture aspects that are relevant for speech perception, such as dip listening and spatial release from masking. In the present study we developed and evaluated a test condition that incorporates these aspects and compared it with a standard condition. Speech intelligibility was measured in 100 participants with normal hearing (NH, N=17) and hearing loss (HL, N=83) ranging from mild to severe. Measurements were conducted using the German matrix sentence test (OLSA) in the standard condition with frontal presentation of stationary noise co-located with the target speech, and the proposed condition with fluctuating, speech-like maskers spatially separated (±60°) from the target. Stimuli were presented via headphones using virtual acoustics. Tests were performed unaided and with individualized amplification. The proposed condition revealed reduced speech intelligibility also for listeners with HL that showed close-to-normal speech intelligibility in the standard condition. With individualized amplification, more listeners with HL showed reduced speech intelligibility compared to NH listeners than in the standard condition. Benefit of amplification varied widely across individuals with similar hearing thresholds, with some listeners showing little or no benefit. The advantages of the proposed condition were driven by masker fluctuations rather than by spatial separation of sound sources. These findings demonstrate that speech intelligibility measurements incorporating fluctuating maskers provide potentially relevant information beyond standard assessments and can support a more individualized assessment of hearing loss.

This paper presents the design and structure of an open-access audiological dataset created to support hearing aid algorithm development and model-based audiology. It provides comprehensive perceptual measures for individuals with normal hearing and hearing loss, with and without hearing aids. The dataset includes pure-tone audiometry, otoscopy, coupler measurements, the Loudness Validation Method (LVM), tone-in-noise detection, categorical loudness scaling, speech recognition tests (Göttingen Sentence Test, GÖSA; Oldenburg Sentence Test, OLSA), listening effort (Adaptive Categorical Listening Effort Scaling, ACALES), and self-reported hearing and functioning (HEAR-COMMAND Tool). OLSA and ACALES were conducted in both common spatial setups and four virtual acoustic scenes, with aided and unaided conditions for hearing aid users. Data are organised according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Seventy-six participants. The release includes database documentation, measurement details, raw data, metadata, and structured SQL files. Sample outcomes for individuals with moderate hearing loss are reported here for the OLSA, ACALES, GÖSA, LVM, and audiometry. This dataset enables cross-methodological analysis and provides simulated acoustic scenes for evaluating hearing loss. By combining standardised and novel measures, it offers a baseline resource for model-based audiology research and hearing aid benefit assessment.

Loudness is a fundamental dimension of auditory perception. When hearing impairment results in a loudness deficit, hearing aids are typically prescribed to compensate for this. However, the relationship between an individual’s specific hearing impairment and the hearing aid fitting strategy used to address it is usually not straightforward. Various iterations of fine-tuning and troubleshooting by the hearing care professional are required, based largely on experience and the introspective feedback from the hearing aid user. We present the development of a new method for validating an individual’s loudness perception of natural signals relative to a normal-hearing reference. It is a measurement method specifically designed for the situation typically encountered by hearing care professionals, namely, with hearing-impaired individuals in the free field with their hearing aids in place. In combination with the qualitative user feedback that the measurement is fast and that its results are intuitively displayed and easily interpretable, the method fills a gap between existing tools and is well suited to provide concrete guidance and orientation to the hearing care professional in the process of individual gain adjustment.

A major goal of hearing-device provision is to improve communication in daily life. However, there is still a large gap between the user's daily-life aided listening experience and hearing-aid benefit as assessed with established speech reception measurements in the laboratory and clinical practice. For a more realistic assessment, hearing-aid provision needs to be tested in suitable acoustic environments. In this study, using virtual acoustics, we developed complex acoustic scenarios to measure speech-intelligibility and listening-effort benefit obtained from hearing-aid amplification and signal enhancement strategies. Measurements were conducted using the participants’ own devices and a research hearing aid, the Portable Hearing Laboratory (PHL). On the PHL, in addition to amplification, a monaural and a binaural directional filter, as well as a spectral filter were employed. We assessed the benefit from different signal enhancement strategies at the group and the individual level. At the group level, signal enhancement including directional filtering provided a higher hearing-aid benefit in challenging acoustic scenarios in terms of speech intelligibility compared to amplification alone or combined with spectral filtering. However, no difference between monaural and binaural signal enhancement occurred. On an individual level, we found large differences in hearing-aid benefit between participants. While some benefitted from signal-enhancement algorithms, others benefitted from amplification alone, but additional signal enhancement had a detrimental effect. This shows the importance of an individual selection of signal enhancement strategies as a part of the hearing-aid fitting process.