Influence of Audibility and Distortion on Recognition of Reverberant Speech for Children and Adults with Hearing Aid Amplification

Marc A. Brennan; Ryan W. McCreery; John Massey

doi:10.1055/a-1678-3381

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 170-180
DOI: 10.1055/a-1678-3381

Research Article

Influence of Audibility and Distortion on Recognition of Reverberant Speech for Children and Adults with Hearing Aid Amplification

Authors

Marc A. Brennan

¹Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
Ryan W. McCreery

²Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
John Massey

³Florida Ear and Sinus Center, Silverstein Institute, Sarasota, Florida

Abstract

Background Adults and children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) have trouble understanding speech in rooms with reverberation when using hearing aid amplification. While the use of amplitude compression signal processing in hearing aids may contribute to this difficulty, there is conflicting evidence on the effects of amplitude compression settings on speech recognition. Less clear is the effect of a fast release time for adults and children with SNHL when using compression ratios derived from a prescriptive procedure.

Purpose The aim of the study is to determine whether release time impacts speech recognition in reverberation for children and adults with SNHL and to determine if these effects of release time and reverberation can be predicted using indices of audibility or temporal and spectral distortion.

Research Design This is a quasi-experimental cohort study. Participants used a hearing aid simulator set to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm m[i/o] for three different amplitude compression release times. Reverberation was simulated using three different reverberation times.

Participants Participants were 20 children and 16 adults with SNHL.

Data Collection and Analyses Participants were seated in a sound-attenuating booth and then nonsense syllable recognition was measured. Predictions of speech recognition were made using indices of audibility, temporal distortion, and spectral distortion and the effects of release time and reverberation were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results While nonsense syllable recognition decreased in reverberation release time did not significantly affect nonsense syllable recognition. Participants with lower audibility were more susceptible to the negative effect of reverberation on nonsense syllable recognition.

Conclusion We have extended previous work on the effects of reverberation on aided speech recognition to children with SNHL. Variations in release time did not impact the understanding of speech. An index of audibility best predicted nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation and, clinically, these results suggest that patients with less audibility are more susceptible to nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation.

Keywords

hearing loss - hearing aids - speech perception - adults and children

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M. et al. Speech recognition and parent ratings from auditory development questionnaires in children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (Suppl. 01) 60S-75S
2 Brennan M, McCreery R, Kopun J, Lewis D, Alexander J, Stelmachowicz P. Masking release in children and adults with hearing loss when using amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (01) 110-121
3 Wróblewski M, Lewis DE, Valente DL, Stelmachowicz PG. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (06) 731-744
4 Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 183-196
5 Wolters F, Smeds K, Schmidt E, Christensen EK, Norup C. Common sound scenarios: a context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 527-540
6 Smeds K, Gotowiec S, Wolters F, Herrlin P, Larsson J, Dahlquist M. Selecting scenarios for hearing-related laboratory testing. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 20S-30S
7 Wagener KC, Hansen M, Ludvigsen C. Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (04) 348-370
8 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Lewis D, Brennan M. Auditory, cognitive, and linguistic factors predict speech recognition in adverse listening conditions for children with hearing loss. Front Neurosci 2019; 13: 1093
9 Crukley J, Scollie S, Parsa V. An exploration of non-quiet listening at school. J Educ Audiol 2011; 17: 23-35
10 Culling JF. Speech intelligibility in virtual restaurants. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (04) 2418-2426
11 Quartieri J, D'Ambrosio S, Guarnaccia C, Iannone G. Experiments in room acoustics: modelling of a church sound field and reverberation time measurements. WSEAS Trans Signal Process 2009; 5: 126-135
12 Brennan M, Souza P. Effects of expansion on consonant recognition and consonant audibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (02) 119-127
13 Kates JM. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (06) 395-409
14 Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Syllabic compression: effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol 1992; 26 (06) 351-361
15 Bor S, Souza P, Wright R. Multichannel compression: Effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; Oct; 51 (05) 1315-1527
16 Reinhart P, Zahorik P, Souza PE. Effects of reverberation, background talker number, and compression release time on signal-to-noise ratio. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (01) EL130-EL135
17 Naylor G, Johannesson RB. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (03) 161-171
18 Alexander JM, Rallapalli V. Acoustic and perceptual effects of amplitude and frequency compression on high-frequency speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (02) 908-923
19 Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (03) 1654-1664
20 Alexander JM, Masterson K. Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (02) e35-e49
21 Boike KT, Souza PE. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (02) 456-468
22 van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (05) 2903-2913
23 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
24 Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (03) 216-227
25 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
26 Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (07) 441-459
27 Salorio-Corbetto M, Baer T, Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Effect of the number of amplitude-compression channels and compression speed on speech recognition by listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2020; 147 (03) 1344-1358
28 Rallapalli VH, Alexander JM. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition with variants of a multichannel adaptive dynamic range compression scheme. Int J Audiol 2019; 58 (10) 661-669
29 Novick ML, Bentler RA, Dittberner A, Flamme GA. Effects of release time and directionality on unilateral and bilateral hearing aid fittings in complex sound fields. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (10) 534-544
30 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings—2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (03) 153-171
31 McCreery RW, Venediktov RA, Coleman JJ, Leech HM. An evidence-based systematic review of amplitude compression in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (02) 269-294
32 Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Stone MA. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (01) 400-411
33 Brennan MA, McCreery RW, Buss E, Jesteadt W. The influence of hearing aid gain on gap-detection thresholds for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 969-979
34 Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Roush PA. Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (03) 340-348
35 Nittrouer S, Crowther CS, Miller ME. The relative weighting of acoustic properties in the perception of [s] + stop clusters by children and adults. Percept Psychophys 1998; 60 (01) 51-64
36 Boothroyd A. Perception of speech pattern contrasts from auditory presentation of voice fundamental frequency. Ear Hear 1988; 9 (06) 313-321
37 Marriage JE, Moore BCJ. New speech tests reveal benefit of wide-dynamic-range, fast-acting compression for consonant discrimination in children with moderate-to-profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (07) 418-425
38 Marriage JE, Moore BCJ, Stone MA, Baer T. Effects of three amplification strategies on speech perception by children with severe and profound hearing loss. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (01) 35-47
39 Liu H, Liu Y, Li Y. et al. Effect of adaptive compression and fast-acting WDRC strategies on sentence recognition in noise in mandarin-speaking pediatric hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (04) 273-278
40 Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 77: 1069-1077
41 Reinhart PN, Souza PE, Srinivasan NK, Gallun FJ. Effects of reverberation and compression on consonant identification in individuals with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (02) 144-152
42 Shi L-F, Doherty KA. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (05) 1328-1340
43 Reinhart PN, Souza PE. Intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech: effects of wide dynamic range compression release time and working memory. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (06) 1543-1554
44 Reinhart P, Zahorik P, Souza P. Effects of reverberation on the relation between compression speed and working memory for speech-in-noise perception. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1098-1105
45 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (03) 651-667
46 Kates JM, Arehart KH. The hearing-aid speech perception index (HASPI). Speech Commun 2014; 65: 75-93
47 Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Brennan M, Stecker GC. Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (05) 494-504
48 American National Standards Institute. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (s3.5). New York, NY: ANSI; 1997
49 Hagerman B, Olofsson Å.. A method to measure the effect of noise reduction algorithms using simultaneous speech and noise. Acta Acust United Acust 2004; 90: 356-361
50 Souza PE, Turner CW. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 12-20
51 Kates JM, Arehart KH, Anderson MC, Kumar Muralimanohar R, Harvey Jr LO. Using objective metrics to measure hearing aid performance. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1165-1175
52 Rasetshwane DM, Raybine DA, Kopun JG, Gorga MP, Neely ST. Influence of instantaneous compression on recognition of speech in noise with temporal dips. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (01) 16-30
53 Muralimanohar RK, Kates JM, Arehart KH. Using envelope modulation to explain speech intelligibility in the presence of a single reflection. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141 (05) EL482-EL487
54 Kates JM, Arehart KH. The hearing-aid speech perception index (HASPI) version 2. Speech Commun 2020; 131: 35-46
55 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Rockville, MD: ASHA; 2005
56 McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (06) 4070-4081
57 Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 2002; 11 (02) 65-71
58 Bradley JS. Speech intelligibility studies in classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80 (03) 846-854
59 Sato H, Bradley JS. Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (04) 2064-2077
60 Cox RM, Moore JN. Composite speech spectrum for hearing and gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31 (01) 102-107
61 American National Standards Institute A.. American National Standard Specification for Octave-Band and Fractional-Octave-Band Analog and Digital Filters (ANSI s1.11–1986). New York, NY: ASA; 1986
62 Richardson JTE. The use of Latin-square designs in educational and psychological research. Educ Res Rev 2018; 24: 84-97
63 Oleson JJ, Brown GD, McCreery R. The evolution of statistical methods in speech, language, and hearing sciences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 498-506
64 Walker EA, Redfern A, Oleson JJ. Linear mixed-model analysis to examine longitudinal trajectories in vocabulary depth and breadth in children who are hard of hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 525-542
65 Xia J, Xu B, Pentony S, Xu J, Swaminathan J. Effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility in normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143 (03) 1523-1533
66 Parthasarathy A, Bartlett EL, Kujawa SG. Age-related changes in neural coding of envelope cues: peripheral declines and central compensation. Neuroscience 2019; 407: 21-31
67 Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport 2002; 13 (15) 1865-1870
68 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (41) 14156-14164
69 Bartha-Doering L, Deuster D, Giordano V, am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, Dobel C. A systematic review of the mismatch negativity as an index for auditory sensory memory: from basic research to clinical and developmental perspectives. Psychophysiology 2015; 52 (09) 1115-1130
70 Davies-Venn E, Nelson P, Souza P. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (01) 492-503
71 Gifford RH, Bacon SP, Williams EJ. An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (04) 857-864
72 Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG. et al. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 2000; 284 (14) 1806-1813