Using Multichannel Wide-Dynamic Range Compression in Severely Hearing-Impaired Listeners: Effects on Speech Recognition and Quality

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition across a sampling of amplification choices available for listeners with severe loss. This includes conventional options (linear with peak clipping and linear with compression limiting) and newer strategies (multichannel wide-dynamic range compression [WDRC]) theorized to better accommodate reduced dynamic range. A second objective was to compare speech quality across the same conditions using a paired-comparison test. Design: Participants were 13 adults with severe sensorineural hearing loss and a control group of seven adults with normal hearing. Test materials included consonant-vowel syllables (speech recognition) and sentences (speech quality). Four amplification conditions were included: peak clipping; compression limiting; two-channel WDRC; and three-channel WDRC, with overall audibility similar across conditions. In the WDRC conditions, the compression ratio was fixed at 3:1 in each channel. Consonant recognition was measured using a closed-set task, and speech quality was measured using a paired-comparison test. Results: For the listeners with severe loss, recognition and preference were lower for a three-channel WDRC system than for a compression limiting system. Specific errors were consistent with poorer transmission of amplitude envelope information by the multichannel WDRC systems. Conclusions: Under some conditions, the benefit of fast-acting, multichannel WDRC systems relative to more linear amplification strategies may be reduced in listeners with severe loss. Performance decrements with these systems are consistent with consequences of broader auditory filters.

[1]  D A Fabry,et al.  Effects of different frequency response strategies upon recognition and preference for audible speech stimuli. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  S. Rosen.  Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  D J Van Tasell.  Hearing loss, speech, and hearing aids. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  Jill E Preminger,et al.  Case-study analysis of various field study measures. , 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[5]  Braida Ld,et al.  Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987 .

[6]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[7]  J M Festen,et al.  Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  H Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' procedure for selecting the saturation sound pressure level of hearing aids: theoretical derivation. , 1998, Ear and hearing.

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

[10]  Hawkins Db,et al.  Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. , 1993 .

[11]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality , 2002, Trends in amplification.

[12]  P E Souza,et al.  Improving speech audibility with wide dynamic range compression in listeners with severe sensorineural loss. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

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

[14]  P E Souza,et al.  Fitting hearing aids with the Articulation Index: impact on hearing aid effectiveness. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Output limiting compression for the severe-profoundly deaf , 1991 .

[16]  E W Yund,et al.  Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  H. K. Dunn,et al.  Statistical Measurements on Conversational Speech , 1940 .

[18]  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.

[19]  H Levitt,et al.  The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Karolina Smeds.  Is Normal or Less Than Normal Overall Loudness Preferred by First-Time Hearing Aid Users? , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[21]  D D Dirks,et al.  Subjective Judgments of Speech Clarity Measured by Paired Comparisons and Category Rating , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[22]  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.

[23]  R K Surr,et al.  Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[24]  H. Levitt,et al.  Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test , 1975 .

[25]  B Hagerman,et al.  The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[26]  N I Durlach,et al.  Multichannel syllabic compression for severely impaired listeners. , 1986, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[27]  Francis K. Kuk,et al.  Hearing aid design and fitting solutions for persons with severe‐to‐profound losses , 2000 .

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

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

[30]  P E Souza,et al.  Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[31]  T A Ricketts,et al.  The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Acoustic Analysis of Speech , 2009 .

[33]  D Byrne,et al.  Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to? , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[34]  G H Saunders,et al.  Acclimatization to Hearing Aids , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[35]  R M Cox,et al.  Distribution of short-term rms levels in conversational speech. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  P J Lamoré,et al.  Residual hearing capacity of severely hearing-impaired subjects. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[37]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  A Comparison of Threshold‐Based Fitting Strategies for Nonlinear Hearing Aids , 1998, Ear and hearing.

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

[39]  R M Cox,et al.  A Review of Past Research on Changes in Hearing Aid Benefit over Time , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[40]  P Howell,et al.  Production and perception of rise time in the voiceless affricate/fricative distinction. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[42]  F H Bess,et al.  A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[43]  G Keidser,et al.  Comparing Loudness Normalization (IHAFF) with Speech Intelligibility Maximization (NAL-NL1) when Implemented in a Two-Channel Device , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[44]  Westgate Road,et al.  Insertion Gain Measurements , 2004 .

[45]  A Faulkner,et al.  The psychoacoustics of profound hearing impairment. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[46]  B C Moore,et al.  Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. , 1993, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[48]  Pamela E. Souza,et al.  The Contribution of Amplitude Envelope Cues to Sentence Identification in Young and Aged Listeners , 2001, Ear and hearing.

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

[50]  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.

[51]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  L. Humes,et al.  Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. , 1990, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[53]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Fitting Low Ratio Compression to People with Severe and Profound Hearing Losses , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[54]  L D Braida,et al.  Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1987, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

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

[56]  Francis Kuk.  Adaptation to Enhanced Dynamic Range Compression (EDRC)-Examples from the SENSO P38 Digital Hearing Aid , 2001 .

[57]  P E Souza,et al.  Effect of preferred volume setting on speech audibility in different hearing aid circuits. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[58]  D Wigney,et al.  Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[59]  M Hulshof,et al.  Effects of Single-Channel Phonemic Compression Schemes on the Understanding of Speech by Hearing-Impaired Listeners:Efectos de los esquemas de compresión fonémica en un canal en unico sobre la comprensión del lenguaje en personas con impedimentos auditivos , 2001, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[60]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

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

[62]  B. Moore,et al.  Effect of the speed of a single-channel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.