Literature DB >> 18326155

Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry.

Evelyn Davies-Venn1, Pamela Souza, David Fabry.   

Abstract

This study evaluated quality ratings for speech and music stimuli processed using peak clipping (PC), compression limiting (CL), and wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearing aid circuitry. Eighteen listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were binaurally fitted with behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids and instructed to rate the quality of speech under various conditions in quiet and noise and two genres of music. Results for speech revealed a slight preference for WDRC at 80 dB SPL, and equivalent ratings for the three circuits under all other listening conditions. Music ratings revealed a marginally significant preference for WDRC and a preference for classical over popular music. For music, judgments on pleasantness were the most influential on overall circuit preference.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2007        PMID： 18326155     DOI： 10.3766/jaaa.18.8.6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN： 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  10 in total

1.  Analog-to-digital conversion to accommodate the dynamics of live music in hearing instruments.

Authors:  Neil S Hockley; Frauke Bahlmann; Bernadette Fulton
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-09

2.  The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion.

Authors:  Evelyn Davies-Venn; Pamela Souza
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  The Hearing-Aid Audio Quality Index (HAAQI).

Authors:  James M Kates; Kathryn H Arehart
Journal:  IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process       Date:  2015-12-10

4.  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

Review 5.  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

6.  The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.

Authors:  Emily M H Lundberg; Song Hui Chon; James M Kates; Melinda C Anderson; Kathryn H Arehart
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Dynamic Range Across Music Genres and the Perception of Dynamic Compression in Hearing-Impaired Listeners.

Authors:  Martin Kirchberger; Frank A Russo
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Perceived Sound Quality Dimensions Influencing Frequency-Gain Shaping Preferences for Hearing Aid-Amplified Speech and Music.

Authors:  Jonathan M Vaisberg; Steve Beaulac; Danielle Glista; Ewan A Macpherson; Susan D Scollie
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Comparing Speech Recognition for Listeners With Normal and Impaired Hearing: Simulations for Controlling Differences in Speech Levels and Spectral Shape.

Authors:  Daniel Fogerty; Rachel Madorskiy; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Making myself understood: perceived factors affecting the intelligibility of sung text.

Authors:  Philip A Fine; Jane Ginsborg
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-04
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.