Linking dynamic-range compression across the ears can improve speech intelligibility in spatially separated noise.

Recently introduced hearing devices allow dynamic-range compression to be coordinated at the two ears through a wireless link. This study investigates how linking compression across the ears might improve speech intelligibility in the presence of a spatially separated steady noise. An analysis of the compressors' behavior shows how linked compression can preserve interaural level differences (ILDs) and, compared to compression operating independently at each ear, improve the long-term apparent speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the ear with the better SNR. Speech intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners was significantly better with linked than with unlinked compression. The performance with linked compression was similar to that without any compression. The benefit of linked over unlinked compression was the same for binaural listening and for monaural listening to the ear with the better SNR, indicating that the benefit was due to changes to the signal at this ear and not to the preservation of ILDs. Differences in performance across experimental conditions were qualitatively consistent with changes in apparent SNR at the better ear. Predictions made using a speech intelligibility model suggest that linked compression could potentially provide a user of bilateral hearing aids with an improvement in intelligibility of up to approximately ten percentage points.

[1]  A. V. Schaik,et al.  Benefit from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, age, and cognition , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[3]  Amro El-Jaroudi,et al.  Relative energy and intelligibility of transient speech information , 2005, Proceedings. (ICASSP '05). IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2005..

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

[5]  A. Kam,et al.  Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[6]  N. J. Versfeld,et al.  The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  J. Culling,et al.  The role of head-related time and level cues in the unmasking of speech in noise and competing speech , 2005 .

[8]  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.

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

[10]  Ian M Wiggins,et al.  Effects of Dynamic-Range Compression on the Spatial Attributes of Sounds in Normal-Hearing Listeners , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[11]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[12]  Björn Hagerman,et al.  The effect of presentation level and compression characteristics on sentence recognition in modulated noise , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[13]  Björn Hagerman,et al.  The effect of audibility, signal-to-noise ratio, and temporal speech cues on the benefit from fast-acting compression in modulated noise , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[14]  W. Noble,et al.  Optimizing Sound Localization with Hearing Aids , 1998, Trends in amplification.

[15]  J M Festen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Brian M. Kreisman,et al.  Improvements in Speech Understanding With Wireless Binaural Broadband Digital Hearing Instruments in Adults With Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2010, Trends in amplification.

[17]  Lise Bruun Hansen Epoq study measures user benefits , 2008 .

[18]  James M Kates,et al.  Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. , 1999, British journal of audiology.

[20]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Evaluating the Benefit of Hearing Aids in Solving the Cocktail Party Problem , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[21]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The Choice of Compression Speed in Hearing Aids: Theoretical and Practical Considerations and the Role of Individual Differences , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[22]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  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.

[25]  Paula C. Stacey,et al.  Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training in improving the perception of noise-vocoded speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  James M Kates,et al.  Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[28]  B. Moore,et al.  Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  B. Seeber,et al.  Dynamic-range compression affects the lateral position of sounds. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Marcus Holmberg,et al.  Binaural hearing aid communication shown to improve sound quality and localization , 2009 .

[31]  Steven Greenberg,et al.  A Multi-Tier Framework for Understanding Spoken Language , 2012 .

[32]  Martin Dahlquist,et al.  Standard Audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 Measurement Procedure , 2010, Trends in amplification.

[33]  Jens Blauert,et al.  The AUDIS catalog of human HRTFs , 1998 .

[34]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Charles E. Robinson,et al.  The Intelligibility of Speech Processed by Delayed Long‐Time‐Averaged Compression Amplification , 1973 .

[36]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[37]  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.

[38]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  The effect of multi-channel wide dynamic range compression, noise reduction, and the directional microphone on horizontal localization performance in hearing aid wearers , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[39]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: the duplex theory of sound localization revisited. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  D. M. Green,et al.  Sound localization by human listeners. , 1991, Annual review of psychology.

[41]  James M. Kates,et al.  Digital hearing aids. , 2008, Harvard health letter.

[42]  M. Walger,et al.  Influence of Dynamic Compression on Directional Hearing in the Horizontal Plane , 2006, Ear and hearing.