Speech Perception Benefits of Internet Versus Conventional Telephony for Hearing-Impaired Individuals

Background Telephone communication is a challenge for many hearing-impaired individuals. One important technical reason for this difficulty is the restricted frequency range (0.3–3.4 kHz) of conventional landline telephones. Internet telephony (voice over Internet protocol [VoIP]) is transmitted with a larger frequency range (0.1–8 kHz) and therefore includes more frequencies relevant to speech perception. According to a recently published, laboratory-based study, the theoretical advantage of ideal VoIP conditions over conventional telephone quality has translated into improved speech perception by hearing-impaired individuals. However, the speech perception benefits of nonideal VoIP network conditions, which may occur in daily life, have not been explored. VoIP use cannot be recommended to hearing-impaired individuals before its potential under more realistic conditions has been examined. Objective To compare realistic VoIP network conditions, under which digital data packets may be lost, with ideal conventional telephone quality with respect to their impact on speech perception by hearing-impaired individuals. Methods We assessed speech perception using standardized test material presented under simulated VoIP conditions with increasing digital data packet loss (from 0% to 20%) and compared with simulated ideal conventional telephone quality. We monaurally tested 10 adult users of cochlear implants, 10 adult users of hearing aids, and 10 normal-hearing adults in the free sound field, both in quiet and with background noise. Results Across all participant groups, mean speech perception scores using VoIP with 0%, 5%, and 10% packet loss were 15.2% (range 0%–53%), 10.6% (4%–46%), and 8.8% (7%–33%) higher, respectively, than with ideal conventional telephone quality. Speech perception did not differ between VoIP with 20% packet loss and conventional telephone quality. The maximum benefits were observed under ideal VoIP conditions without packet loss and were 36% (P = .001) for cochlear implant users, 18% (P = .002) for hearing aid users, and 53% (P = .001) for normal-hearing adults. With a packet loss of 10%, the maximum benefits were 30% (P = .002) for cochlear implant users, 6% (P = .38) for hearing aid users, and 33% (P = .002) for normal-hearing adults. Conclusions VoIP offers a speech perception benefit over conventional telephone quality, even when mild or moderate packet loss scenarios are created in the laboratory. VoIP, therefore, has the potential to significantly improve telecommunication abilities for the large community of hearing-impaired individuals.

[1]  Bing Chen,et al.  Implementing VoIP: a voice transmission performance progress report , 2004, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[2]  Michael S. Borella,et al.  Internet packet loss: measurement and implications for end-to-end QoS , 1998, Proceedings of the 1998 ICPP Workshop on Architectural and OS Support for Multimedia Applications Flexible Communication Systems. Wireless Networks and Mobile Computing (Cat. No.98EX206).

[3]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Hui Chen,et al.  Statistical analysis and modeling of Internet VoIP traffic for network engineering , 2010 .

[5]  Goldstein Dp,et al.  Acoustic versus inductive coupling of hearing aids to telephones. , 1982 .

[6]  Evangelos P. Markatos,et al.  Realistic Passive Packet Loss Measurement for High-Speed Networks , 2009, TMA.

[7]  Rafik Goubran,et al.  Assessment of effects of packet loss on speech quality in VoIP , 2003, The 2nd IEEE Internatioal Workshop on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and Their Applications, 2003. HAVE 2003. Proceedings..

[8]  Paul Barford,et al.  Improving accuracy in end-to-end packet loss measurement , 2005, SIGCOMM '05.

[9]  M Terry,et al.  Telephone usage in the hearing-impaired population. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Alexander Raake,et al.  Speech Quality of VoIP - Assessment and Prediction , 2006 .

[11]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[12]  Jan Skoglund,et al.  Voice over IP: Speech Transmission over Packet Networks , 2008 .

[13]  Marco Caversaccio,et al.  How Internet Telephony Could Improve Communication for Hearing-Impaired Individuals , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  Gerhard Haßlinger,et al.  The Gilbert-Elliott Model for Packet Loss in Real Time Services on the Internet , 2011, MMB.

[15]  R B D'Agostino,et al.  Central auditory dysfunction, cognitive dysfunction, and dementia in older people. , 1996, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[16]  Ronald Klein,et al.  The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss: the epidemiology of hearing loss study. , 2003, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[17]  Lingfen Sun,et al.  Impact of Packet Loss Location on Perceived Speech Quality , 2001 .

[18]  Claudio Napoli,et al.  Quality of Life Determinants and Hearing Function in an Elderly Population: Osservatorio Geriatrico Campano Study Group , 1999, Gerontology.

[19]  J Kiessling,et al.  Benefit of a digital feedback suppression system for acoustical telephone communication , 2001, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[20]  Maya Kirit Yajnik.  Measurement and modeling of packet loss in the Internet , 2000 .

[21]  Ronald Klein,et al.  The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. , 2003, The Gerontologist.

[22]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Measurement and modelling of the temporal dependence in packet loss , 1999, IEEE INFOCOM '99. Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings. Eighteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. The Future is Now (Cat. No.99CH36320).

[23]  A E Holmes,et al.  Telephone Listening Ability for Hearing‐Impaired Individuals , 1984, Ear and hearing.

[24]  Helen E Cullington,et al.  An investigation into the effect of limiting the frequency bandwidth of speech on speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users , 2004, International Journal of Audiology.

[25]  A. Sismanis,et al.  Telephone Use and Understanding in Patients with Cochlear Implants , 2004, Ear, nose, & throat journal.

[26]  E. Platz,et al.  Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[27]  P Franks,et al.  Deafness and mortality: analyses of linked data from the National Health Interview Survey and National Death Index. , 1999, Public health reports.

[28]  Shrikanth S. Narayanan,et al.  Effect of bandwidth extension to telephone speech recognition in cochlear implant users. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Sarabjeet Singh,et al.  Computer Modeling & Performance Analysis of VoIP under Different Strategic Conditions , 2010, 2010 Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications.

[30]  J. Connolly,et al.  Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Are We Achieving the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) Objectives? , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[31]  M. Papadopouli,et al.  Analysis of the perceived VoIP quality under various wireless network conditions , 2010 .

[32]  P N Plyler,et al.  Telephone communication with in-the-ear hearing aids using acoustic and electromagnetic coupling. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[33]  D P Goldstein,et al.  Acoustic versus Inductive Coupling of Hearing Aids to Telephones , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[34]  Wenyu Jiang,et al.  Modeling of Packet Loss and Delay and Their Effect on Real-Time Multimedia Service Quality , 2000 .