Literature DB >> 10229513

Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures.

L M Jenstad1, R C Seewald, L E Cornelisse, J Shantz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to test the theoretical advantages of a single-channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) circuit for speech intelligibility and loudness comfort for five speech spectra.
DESIGN: Twelve adolescents and young adults with moderate to severe hearing loss were fitted with the Siemens Viva 2 Pro behind-the-ear instrument set to DSL 4.0 targets for both linear gain and WDRC processing. Speech intelligibility was measured in the unaided, linear gain and WDRC conditions using two tasks in quiet: nonsense words and sentences. The items were digitally filtered to represent five speech spectra: average speech at 4 m, average speech at 1 m, own voice at ear level, classroom at 1 m, and shouted speech at 1 m. The subjects also rated the loudness of each hearing aid/speech spectrum combination using a categorical rating scale.
RESULTS: Both the linear gain and WDRC settings provided improved speech recognition relative to the unaided condition, and the two circuits resulted in equivalent performance for average speech input levels. On average, the WDRC aid resulted in high and uniform speech recognition scores across the five spectra. In contrast, the linear gain aid resulted in a lower recognition score for soft speech and shouted speech relative to that obtained with an average speech level. Analysis of individual speech recognition benefit scores revealed that 11 out of 12 subjects had equal or greater performance with the WDRC processing than the linear processing. Subjective loudness ratings in the linear gain condition were compatible with decreased sensation level for soft speech and loudness discomfort for shouted speech.
CONCLUSIONS: WDRC processing has potential applications in hearing aid fittings for listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss because it provides a consistently audible and comfortable signal across a wide range of listening conditions in quiet without the need for volume control adjustments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10229513     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199904000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  9 in total

1.  Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2002-12

2.  Effects of dynamic range compression on spatial selective auditory attention in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Andrew H Schwartz; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  A randomized controlled comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptions for young children: hearing-aid characteristics and performance outcomes at three years of age.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Harvey Dillon; Sanna Hou; Vicky Zhang; Julia Day; Kathryn Crowe; Vivienne Marnane; Laura Street; Lauren Burns; Patricia Van Buynder; Christopher Flynn; Jessica Thomson
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 4.  The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm.

Authors:  Susan Scollie; Richard Seewald; Leonard Cornelisse; Sheila Moodie; Marlene Bagatto; Diana Laurnagaray; Steve Beaulac; John Pumford
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2005

5.  Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss.

Authors:  Evelyn Davies-Venn; Pamela Souza; Marc Brennan; G Christopher Stecker
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Perceptual Implications of Level- and Frequency-Specific Deviations from Hearing Aid Prescription in Children.

Authors:  Ryan W McCreery; Marc Brennan; Elizabeth A Walker; Meredith Spratford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Perception of temporally processed speech by listeners with hearing impairment.

Authors:  Lauren Calandruccio; Karen A Doherty; Laurel H Carney; Harshavardhana N Kikkeri
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 8.  An evidence-based systematic review of amplitude compression in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss.

Authors:  Ryan W McCreery; Rebecca A Venediktov; Jaumeiko J Coleman; Hillary M Leech
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 1.493

9.  Does the Speech Cue Profile Affect Response to Amplitude Envelope Distortion?

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Gregory Ellis; Kendra Marks; Richard Wright; Frederick Gallun
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.297

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.