Noise, Amplification, and Compression: Considerations of Three Main Issues in Hearing Aid Design

This paper deals with the following three topics: (1) interfering noise (voice babble, single competing speaker) as the main problem of many hearing-impaired listeners, (2) the amplitude-frequency response of the hearing aid, and (3) the benefit of frequency-dependent compression. Research by the author and his coworkers has shown that: (1) persons with impaired hearing typically need 3 to 6 dB higher speech-to-noise ratios than do normal-hearing listeners–a technically very difficult problem to solve; (2) within a relatively ample range, the speech-reception threshold in noise is independent of the amplitude-frequency response; and (3) the small time constants of syllabic compression deteriorate the speech signal. Multichannel amplification (24 channels) with automatic gain control for each channel is recommended, optimally adjusted to keep the (variable) speech signal within the impaired ear's limited dynamic range as well as to preserve the intensity differences of successive speech phonemes.

[1]  Characteristics and Distribution of Impaired Hearing in the Population of the United States , 1940 .

[2]  Hallowell Davis,et al.  Book Reviews: Hearing Aids: An Experimental Study of Design Objectives , 1948 .

[3]  F. Miskolczy-Fodor,et al.  Relation between Loudness and Duration of Tonal Pulses. III. Response in Cases of Abnormal Loudness Function , 1960 .

[4]  Jozef J. Zwislocki,et al.  Loudness Function of a 1000‐cps Tone in the Presence of a Masking Noise , 1964 .

[5]  R. Carhart,et al.  Influence of compressor action on speech intelligibility. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  E Villchur,et al.  Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[9]  R Plomp,et al.  Room acoustics for the aged. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B Hagerman,et al.  Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. , 1982, Scandinavian audiology.

[11]  D D Dirks,et al.  Some effects of spectral shaping on recognition of speech by hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. , 1983, British journal of audiology.

[13]  M W Skinner,et al.  Amplification bandwidth and intelligibility of speech in quiet and noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1983, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[14]  K Mizoi,et al.  Clinical results of hearing aid with noise-level-controlled selective amplification. , 1983, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[15]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of a hearing aid on the speech-reception threshold of hearing-impaired listeners in quiet and in noise. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  K Welzl-Müller,et al.  Signal-to-noise threshold with and without hearing aid. , 1984, Scandinavian audiology.

[17]  W A Dreschler,et al.  The use of single-channel compression for the improvement of speech intelligibility. , 1984, Scandinavian audiology.

[18]  L K Stein,et al.  Listener‐Assessed Intelligibility of a Hearing Aid Self‐Adaptive Noise Filter , 1984, Ear and hearing.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. , 1985, British journal of audiology.

[20]  D Byrne Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  R. Plomp A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  Jae S. Lim,et al.  Speech enhancement , 1986, ICASSP '86. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[24]  P M Zurek,et al.  Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of varying the slope of the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Patrick M. Peterson Using linearly-constrained adaptive beamforming to reduce interference in hearing aids from competing talkers in reverberant rooms , 1987, ICASSP '87. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[27]  D A Fabry,et al.  Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing-impaired subjects. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[28]  L E Humes,et al.  Modeling sensorineural hearing loss. I. Model and retrospective evaluation. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  H Levitt,et al.  An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[30]  R Plomp,et al.  The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  B C Moore,et al.  A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. , 1988, British journal of audiology.

[32]  F K Kuk,et al.  The effects of "noise suppression" hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[33]  J M Festen,et al.  The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  Speech levels at the ear of a talker and their implication for a hearing‐impaired person taking part in a discussion , 1990 .

[35]  F K Kuk,et al.  Subjective ratings of noise-reduction hearing aids. , 1990, Scandinavian audiology.

[36]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  P. A. Yantis,et al.  The effect of automatic gain control in hearing-impaired listeners with different dynamic ranges. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[38]  R J Stubbs,et al.  Algorithms for separating the speech of interfering talkers: evaluations with voiced sentences, and normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  A. Macleod,et al.  A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[40]  B C Moore,et al.  Characterization and Simulation of Impaired Hearing: Implications for Hearing Aid Design , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[41]  R M Cox,et al.  Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[42]  A Ringdahl,et al.  Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[43]  C A Sammeth,et al.  A Review of Current “Noise Reduction” Hearing Aids: Rationale, Assumptions, and Efficacy , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[44]  J Kiessling,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a programmable three-channel automatic gain control amplification system. , 1991, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[45]  J M Festen,et al.  The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  T P Barron,et al.  Frequency response differences of four gain-equalized hearing aid prescription formulae. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[47]  J R Dubno,et al.  Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  D Byrne Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[49]  J Verschuure,et al.  Effect of hearing aids on speech perception in noisy situations. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[50]  L P Sherlock,et al.  Performance with an adaptive frequency response hearing aid in a sample of elderly hearing-impaired listeners. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

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

[52]  C M Rankovic,et al.  Potential benefits of adaptive frequency-gain characteristics for speech reception in noise. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  W A Dreschler,et al.  The effects of input-output configuration in syllabic compression on speech perception. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[54]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[55]  W Soede,et al.  Assessment of a directional microphone array for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.