Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(09): 596-605
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732333
Research Article

Audibility and Spectral-Ripple Discrimination Thresholds as Predictors of Word Recognition with Nonlinear Frequency Compression

Marc A. Brennan
1   University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
,
Ryan W. McCreery
2   Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by Unitron, which provided the hearing aids and by NIH/NIDCD R01 DC004300 (Patricia G. Stelmachowicz), R01 DC013591 (R.W.M.), P30 DC004662 (Boys Town National Research Hospital), and R21DC017588 (M.A.B.).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) lowers high-frequency sounds to a lower frequency and is used to improve high-frequency audibility. However, the efficacy of NFC varies widely—while some individuals benefit from NFC, many do not. Spectral resolution is one factor that might explain individual benefit from NFC. Because individuals with better spectral resolution understand more speech than those with poorer spectral resolution, it was hypothesized that individual benefit from NFC could be predicted from the change in spectral resolution measured with NFC relative to a condition without NFC.

Purpose This study aimed to determine the impact of NFC on access to spectral information and whether these changes predict individual benefit from NFC for adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL).

Research Design Present study is a quasi-experimental cohort study. Participants used a pair of hearing aids set to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm (DSL m[i/o]).

Study Sample Participants were 19 adults with SNHL, recruited from the Boys Town National Research Hospital Participant Registry.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants were seated in a sound-attenuating booth and then percent-correct recognition of words, and spectral-ripple discrimination thresholds were measured for two different conditions, with and without NFC. Because audibility is known to influence spectral-ripple thresholds and benefit from NFC, audibility was quantified using the aided speech intelligibility index (SII). Linear mixed models were generated to predict word recognition using the aided SII and spectral-ripple discrimination thresholds.

Results While NFC did not influence percent-correct word recognition, participants with higher (better) aided SII and spectral-ripple discrimination thresholds understood more words than those with either a lower aided SII or spectral-ripple discrimination threshold. Benefit from NFC was not predictable from a participant's aided SII or spectral-ripple discrimination threshold.

Conclusion We have extended previous work on the effect of audibility on benefit from NFC to include a measure of spectral resolution, the spectral-ripple discrimination threshold. Clinically, these results suggest that patients with better audibility and spectral resolution will understand speech better than those with poorer audibility or spectral resolution; however, these results are inconsistent with the notion that individual benefit from NFC is predictable from aided audibility or spectral resolution.

Keywords

hearing aids and assistive devices - speech perception - hearing science - frequency lowering - spectral resolution

Note

This project was previously presented as a poster. McCreery RW, Brennan MA, Won JH, Lewis DE, Kopun J. Audibility and spectral resolution as predictors of speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression. International Hearing Aid Conference, Tahoe City, CA, August 2014.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 06 November 2020

Accepted: 18 June 2021

Article published online:
17 February 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Agrawal Y, Platz EA, Niparko JK. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168 (14) 1522-1530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kochkin S. Marke Trak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hear J 2005;58(09):30, 32–34, 38–40, 42–43
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Souza PE, Boike KT, Witherell K, Tremblay K. Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: effects of age, amplification, and background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (01) 54-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (06) 1276-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boothroyd A, Mulhearn B, Gong J, Ostroff J. Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (03) 1807-1818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Swanepoel R, Oosthuizen DJJ, Hanekom JJ. The relative importance of spectral cues for vowel recognition in severe noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 132 (04) 2652-2662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bernstein JGW, Mehraei G, Shamma S, Gallun FJ, Theodoroff SM, Leek MR. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (04) 293-306
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zwicker E, Schorn K. Psychoacoustical tuning curves in audiology. Audiology 1978; 17 (02) 120-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kimlinger C, McCreery R, Lewis D. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 128-137
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Alexander JM, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG. Effects of frequency compression and frequency transposition on fricative and affricate perception in listeners with normal hearing and mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (05) 519-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bohnert A, Nyffeler M, Keilmann A. Advantages of a non-linear frequency compression algorithm in noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267 (07) 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (09) 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 McCreery RW, Alexander J, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. The influence of audibility on speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) 440-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Picou EM, Marcrum SC, Ricketts TA. Evaluation of the effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech recognition and sound quality for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (05) 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (11) 619-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Park LR, Teagle HFB, Buss E, Roush PA, Buchman CA. Effects of frequency compression hearing aids for unilaterally implanted children with acoustically amplified residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (04) e1-e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hillock-Dunn A, Buss E, Duncan N, Roush PA, Leibold LJ. Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech identification in children with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (03) 353-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (10) 618-628
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E. et al. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (06) 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brennan MA, Lewis D, McCreery R, Kopun J, Alexander JM. Listening effort and speech recognition with frequency compression amplification for children and adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (09) 823-837
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (01) 37-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Shehorn J, Marrone N, Muller T. Speech perception in noise and listening effort of older adults with nonlinear frequency compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 215-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Glista D, Scollie S, Sulkers J. Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing aid fitting in older children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (06) 1765-1787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NBH, Gehani N. Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (05) 1349-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Brennan MA, McCreery R, Kopun J. et al. Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (10) 983-998
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Robles L, Ruggero MA. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 2001; 81 (03) 1305-1352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ruggero MA. Cochlear delays and traveling waves: comments on ‘experimental look at cochlear mechanics. Audiology 1994; 33 (03) 131-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Shamma S, Klein D. The case of the missing pitch templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (5, pt 1): 2631-2644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vogten LL. Low-level pure-tone masking: a comparison of “tuning curves” obtained with simultaneous and forward masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 63 (05) 1520-1527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Supin AYa, Popov VV, Milekhina ON. Frequency resolving power of the human's hearing. Neurosci Lett 1994; 165 (1, 2): 195-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Buss E, Grose J. Auditory sensitivity to spectral modulation phase reversal as a function of modulation depth. PLoS One 2018; 13 (04) e0195686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Narne VK, Sharma M, Van Dun B, Bansal S, Prabhu L, Moore BC. Effects of spectral smearing on performance of the spectral ripple and spectro-temporal ripple tests. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (06) 4298-4306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Jorgensen EJ, McCreery RW, Kirby BJ, Brennan M. Effect of level on spectral-ripple detection threshold for listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2020; 148 (02) 908-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kirby BJ, Browning JM, Brennan MA, Spratford M, McCreery RW. Spectro-temporal modulation detection in children. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (05) EL465-EL468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mehraei G, Gallun FJ, Leek MR, Bernstein JGW. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity for hearing-impaired listeners: dependence on carrier center frequency and the relationship to speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (01) 301-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118 (02) 1111-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Isarangura S, Eddins AC, Ozmeral EJ, Eddins DA. The effects of duration and level on spectral modulation perception. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (10) 3876-3886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Henry BA, Turner CW. The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113 (05) 2861-2873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Litvak LM, Spahr AJ, Saoji AA, Fridman GY. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122 (02) 982-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8 (03) 384-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Drennan WR, Anderson ES, Won JH, Rubinstein JT. Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (03) e92-e98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams A, Spahr AJ. Clinical assessment of spectral modulation detection for adult cochlear implant recipients: a non-language based measure of performance outcomes. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (03) 159-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Landsberger DM, Stupak N, Aronoff JM. Spectral-temporally modulated ripple test lite for computeRless measurement (SLRM): A nonlinguistic test for audiology clinics. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1253-1255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kirby BJ, Brown CJ. Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on acc amplitude and listener performance. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (05) e261-e270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Brennan MA, McCreery RW, Jesteadt W. The influence of hearing-aid compression on forward-masked thresholds for adults with hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (04) 2589-2597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Jürgens T, Clark NR, Lecluyse W, Meddis R. Exploration of a physiologically-inspired hearing-aid algorithm using a computer model mimicking impaired hearing. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (06) 346-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Brennan M, Souza P. Effects of expansion on consonant recognition and consonant audibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (02) 119-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Humes LE, Riker S. Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index. Ear Hear 1992; 13 (06) 406-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Accessed July 9, 2021 at: https://www.asha.org/policy/gl2005-00014/
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 American National Standard, ANSI/ASA S3.5-1997 (R2017). Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. Accessed October 2, 2019 at: https://webstore.ansi.org/preview-pages/ASA/preview_ANSI+ASA+S3.5-1997+(R2017).pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Cox RM, Moore JN. Composite speech spectrum for hearing and gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31 (01) 102-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Aronoff JM, Landsberger DM. The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 134 (02) EL217-EL222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Kirby BJ, Spratford M, Klein KE, McCreery RW. Cognitive abilities contribute to spectro-temporal discrimination in children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (03) 645-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Summers V, Leek MR. The internal representation of spectral contrast in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (06) 3518-3528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. Working memory, age, and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (03) 251-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson A-M, Munro KJ. Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (04) 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Kokx-Ryan M, Cohen J, Cord MT. et al. Benefits of nonlinear frequency compression in adult hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (10) 838-855
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Miller CW, Bates E, Brennan M. The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (05) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. Predictors of aided speech recognition, with and without frequency compression, in older adults. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (07) 467-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar