Fitting Low Ratio Compression to People with Severe and Profound Hearing Losses

Objective In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which wide dynamic range compression and compression limiting could benefit severely and profoundly hearing-impaired adults. Design Subjects were fitted with multi-memory hearing aids incorporating frequency independent input-controlled compression with a 2:1 compression ratio and output-controlled compression limiting. The input compression threshold (CT) was varied to establish the lowest level that maintained audibility for conversational intensity speech without acoustic feedback oscillation. Where a low (40 to 57 dB SPL) CT was possible, this was compared with a moderate (65 to 74 dB SPL) level. The preferred input compression setting was subsequently compared with linear, compression-limited amplification in the same aids. In the three cases where 2:1 input compression could not be used, because of feedback or loudness insufficiency problems, compression limiting was compared with peak clipping. Field trials were conducted over a 2- or 3-mo period to establish preferences. Results Nine of the 16 subjects preferred the inclusion of the higher level input compression, and one preferred lower level input compression. Four subjects preferred linear, compression-limited amplification, one favored peak clipping, and one could not be satisfied with any of the options provided. Conclusions 2:1 input compression was useful, and preferred by 10 of the subjects, but for nine subjects the preferred CT was relatively high. With a group 4-frequency average loss of 87 dB HTL, the results demonstrate that fast-acting, low compression ratio systems can be useful for losses traditionally regarded as the domain of linear amplification.

[1]  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.

[2]  H. Dillon,et al.  Compression in hearing aids: an analysis, a review and some recommendations , 1981 .

[3]  W A Dreschler Dynamic-range reduction by peak clipping or compression and its effects on phoneme perception in hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Scandinavian audiology.

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

[5]  Elmer V. Carlson Smoothing the Hearing Aid Frequency Response , 1974 .

[6]  F K Kuk Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Compression Hearing Aids , 1996, Trends in amplification.

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

[8]  D. Markle,et al.  Hearing Aids , 1936, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[9]  Victor H. Bray,et al.  Real-Ear Measurement of Hearing Threshold and Loudness , 1996, Trends in amplification.

[10]  H Dillon,et al.  Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  H Levitt,et al.  Preferred Listening Levels for Linear and Slow‐Acting Compression Hearing Aids , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Preferred compression threshold with 2: 1 wide dynamic range compression in everyday environments , 1998 .