Improving speech audibility with wide dynamic range compression in listeners with severe sensorineural loss.

OBJECTIVE In contrast to fitting strategies for linear amplification, which have been refined frequently for listeners with different degrees of hearing loss, we know relatively little about the effects of wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) amplification for listeners with severe auditory thresholds. The primary objective of this study was to determine if increases in audibility with WDRC amplification improved speech recognition to a comparable degree for listeners with different degrees of hearing loss. DESIGN Listeners with mild to moderate or severe sensorineural loss were tested on recognition of vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) syllables and sentences digitally processed with linear and WDRC amplification. The speech materials were presented under conditions of controlled audibility, in which WDRC amplification improved speech audibility over linear amplification. Presentation levels were chosen to provide equivalent increases in audibility with WDRC amplification for both listener groups. A control condition in which audibility was equated for the two amplification conditions was also included. RESULTS Recognition results for VCV stimuli indicated that both listener groups received the same benefit from the improved audibility provided by WDRC amplification. Results for sentence recognition showed a greater benefit of WDRC amplification for listeners with mild to moderate than for listeners with severe loss. CONCLUSIONS Increasing the amount of audible speech information with WDRC has similar effects on consonant recognition for listeners with different degrees of hearing loss. Differences in sentence recognition for listeners with different degrees of loss may be due to processing effects or to differences in available acoustic information for longer segments of WDRC-amplified speech.

[1]  D D Dirks,et al.  Speech recognition and the Articulation Index for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  W A Dreschler,et al.  The effect of specific compression settings on phoneme identification in hearing-impaired subjects. , 1988, Scandinavian audiology.

[3]  S. DeGennaro,et al.  Multichannel syllabic compression for severely impaired listeners. , 1986 .

[4]  K. Grant,et al.  Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R L Freyman,et al.  Temporal resolution in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  H Dillon Tutorial Compression? Yes, But for Low or High Frequencies, for Low or High Intensities, and with What Response Times? , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[7]  C. Turner,et al.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  E W Yund,et al.  Multichannel compression hearing aids: effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Q Summerfield,et al.  Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Effects of single-band syllabic amplitude compression on temporal speech information in nonsense syllables and in sentences. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  B. Moore,et al.  Syllabic compression: effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. , 1992, British journal of audiology.

[12]  B E Walden,et al.  Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Selda Fikret‐Pasa The effect of compression ratio on speech intelligibility and quality , 1994 .

[14]  Dianne J. Van Tasell,et al.  Hearing Loss, Speech, and Hearing Aids , 1993 .

[15]  A Goedegebure,et al.  Compression and its Effect on the Speech Signal , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[16]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. , 1986, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[18]  D D Dirks,et al.  Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  G Keidser,et al.  Candidates for Multiple Frequency Response Characteristics , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[20]  N. P. Erber,et al.  Speech-envelope cues as an acoustic aid to lipreading for profoundly deaf children. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  I V Nábĕlek Performance of hearing-impaired listeners under various types of amplitude compression. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  G. Clark,et al.  Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[23]  P. Newall,et al.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[24]  D Byrne,et al.  Selection of hearing aids for severely deaf children. , 1978, British journal of audiology.

[25]  L M Hickson Compression Amplification in Hearing Aids. , 1994, American journal of audiology.

[26]  D D Dirks,et al.  Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  A Boothroyd,et al.  Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  B C Moore,et al.  Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[29]  C W Turner,et al.  Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[30]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  F H Bess,et al.  A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[32]  A Faulkner,et al.  Residual frequency selectivity in the profoundly hearing-impaired listener. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[33]  C V Pavlovic Speech spectrum considerations and speech intelligibility predictions in hearing aid evaluations. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[34]  G D Causey,et al.  The relative importance of recovery time in compression hearing aids. , 1977, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[35]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[36]  C W Turner,et al.  Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[37]  D D Dirks,et al.  Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. II: Articulation index predictions. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  C W Turner,et al.  Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[40]  M. Haggard,et al.  Prescription of gain-setting and prognosis for use and benefit of post-aural hearing aids. , 1981, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[41]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  C W Turner,et al.  Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.