Comparison of Linear Gain and Wide Dynamic Range Compression Hearing Aid Circuits II: Aided Loudness Measures

Objectives: The goal of this study was to test the theoretical advantages of a single‐channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) circuit fitted using the DSL method for increased dynamic range and normalized loudness growth. Design: Ten adolescents and young adults with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were fitted monaurally with the Siemens Viva 2 Pro behind‐the‐ear instrument set to DSL 4.0 targets for both linear gain and WDRC processing. Threshold, upper limit of comfort and loudness growth were measured in the unaided, linear gain and WDRC conditions for warble tones, environmental sounds and speech. Twelve adult listeners with normal hearing also were tested monaurally in the unaided condition to provide normative data for comparison purposes. Results: The WDRC hearing aid provided a greater input dynamic range than the linear circuit for all stimuli. The dynamic range was normalized for more subjects with the WDRC than the linear hearing aid. In addition, exponential loudness growth functions fitted to the loudness growth data showed that, on average, loudness growth was more normalized with the WDRC hearing aid fitted to DSL[i/o] targets than the linear hearing aid fitted to DSL[i/o] targets. Conclusions: WDRC processing, fitted using the DSL[i/o] method, has potential applications in hearing aid fittings for listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss because it provides an audible, comfortable and tolerable amplified signal across a wider range of inputs than linear gain processing, without the need for volume control adjustments.

[1]  Robert G Turner.  The Hearing Aid Expert: Audiologist, Dealer, or Otolaryngologist? , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[2]  Dennis Van Vliet,et al.  Updating Our Fitting Strategies Given New Technology , 1996 .

[3]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  Long-term and short-term characteristics of speech: implications for hearing aid selection for young children. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  R C Seewald,et al.  Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[5]  D B Hawkins,et al.  A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

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

[7]  D Benson,et al.  Patient experiences with multiband full dynamic range compression. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[8]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[10]  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.

[11]  V Pluvinage,et al.  Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  L. E. Comelisse,et al.  Advanced clinical audiometry: measuring residual auditory capacity using a standard audiometer under computer control , 1993 .

[15]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  The Effects of Syllabic Compression and Frequency Shaping on Speech Intelligibility in Hearing , 1994, Ear and hearing.