Christi W Miller1, Emily Bates1, Marc Brennan2. 1. a Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences , University of Washington , Seattle , USA and. 2. b Boys Town National Research Hospital , Omaha , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Frequency lowering (FL) strategies move high frequency sound into a lower frequency range. This study determined if speech perception differences are observed between some of the different frequency lowering strategies that are available. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, repeated-measures design was used to compare three hearing aids that used wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) and either non-linear frequency compression (NFC), linear frequency transposition (LFT), or frequency translation (FT). The hearing aids were matched to prescriptive real ear targets for WDRC. The settings for each FL strategy were adjusted to provide audibility for a 6300 Hz filtered speech signal. Sentence recognition in noise, subjective measures of sound quality, and a modified version of the speech intelligibility index (SII) were measured. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten adults between the ages of 63 to 82 years with bilateral, high frequency hearing loss. RESULTS: LFT and FT led to poorer sentence recognition compared to WDRC for most individuals. No difference in sentence recognition occurred with and without NFC. The quality questionnaire and SII showed few differences between conditions. CONCLUSION: Under similar fitting and testing conditions of this study, FL techniques may not provide speech understanding benefit in certain background noise situations.
OBJECTIVE: Frequency lowering (FL) strategies move high frequency sound into a lower frequency range. This study determined if speech perception differences are observed between some of the different frequency lowering strategies that are available. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, repeated-measures design was used to compare three hearing aids that used wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) and either non-linear frequency compression (NFC), linear frequency transposition (LFT), or frequency translation (FT). The hearing aids were matched to prescriptive real ear targets for WDRC. The settings for each FL strategy were adjusted to provide audibility for a 6300 Hz filtered speech signal. Sentence recognition in noise, subjective measures of sound quality, and a modified version of the speech intelligibility index (SII) were measured. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten adults between the ages of 63 to 82 years with bilateral, high frequency hearing loss. RESULTS: LFT and FT led to poorer sentence recognition compared to WDRC for most individuals. No difference in sentence recognition occurred with and without NFC. The quality questionnaire and SII showed few differences between conditions. CONCLUSION: Under similar fitting and testing conditions of this study, FL techniques may not provide speech understanding benefit in certain background noise situations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Frequency lowering; hearing aids; speech perception
Authors: Jane Auriemmo; Francis Kuk; Chi Lau; Susan Marshall; Natalie Thiele; Margaret Pikora; Debra Quick; Patricia Stenger Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 1.664
Authors: Patricia G Stelmachowicz; Kanae Nishi; Sangsook Choi; Dawna E Lewis; Brenda M Hoover; Darcia Dierking; Andrew Lotto Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Ryan W McCreery; Marc A Brennan; Brenda Hoover; Judy Kopun; Patricia G Stelmachowicz Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Danielle Glista; Susan Scollie; Marlene Bagatto; Richard Seewald; Vijay Parsa; Andrew Johnson Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Benjamin J Kirby; Judy G Kopun; Meredith Spratford; Clairissa M Mollak; Marc A Brennan; Ryan W McCreery Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.664