Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(04): 214-223
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748047
Original Article

Improving Audibility with Nonlinear Amplification for Listeners with High-Frequency Loss

Pamela E. Souza
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
,
Robbi D. Bishop
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
 PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In contrast to fitting strategies for linear amplification that have been frequently refined for listeners with different degrees of hearing loss, we know relatively little about the effects of nonlinear amplification for differing audiometric configurations. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether increases in audibility with nonlinear amplification improved speech recognition to a comparable degree for listeners with sloping sensorineural loss as for a comparison group of listeners with flat sensorineural loss. Consonant recognition was examined as a function of audibility with wide dynamic range compression amplification and with linear amplification. For linearly amplified speech, listeners with flat and sloping loss showed similar improvements in recognition given the same increases in audibility. Results for nonlinearly amplified speech indicated that the listeners with flat loss showed a greater rate of improvement as audibility increases than the listeners with sloping loss. This difference is largely due to superior performance by the listeners with sloping loss for low-audibility speech in comparison to equivalent group performance for high-audibility speech.

Abbreviations: AAI = Aided Audibility Index, LDL = loudness discomfort level, MCR = modified compression ratio, VCV = vowel-consonant-vowel, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Amplification - compression - hearing loss - nonlinear


Publication History

Article published online:
07 April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1996a). Specifications for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6–1996). New York: ANSI.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1996b). Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. (ANSI S3.22–1996). New York: ANSI.
  • Bacon SP, Gleitman RM. (1992). Modulation detection in subjects with relatively flat hearing losses. J Speech Hear Res 35:642–653.
  • Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. (1985). Temporal modulation function in normal-hearing aid hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 24:115–134.
  • Byrne D. (1986). Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80:494–504.
  • Draper NR, Smith H. (1981). Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Fitzgibbons PJ. (1983). Temporal gap detection in noise as a function of frequency, bandwidth, and level. J Acoust Soc Am 74:67–72.
  • Fletcher H. (1953). Speech and Hearing in Communication. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
  • Formby C, Muir K. (1988). Moduation and gap detection for broadband and filtered noise signals. J Acoust Soc Am 84:545–550.
  • Gordon-Salant S. (1984). Effects of reducing low-frequency amplification on consonant perception in quiet and in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27:483–493.
  • Hawkins DB, Walden B, Montgomery A, Prosek RA. (1987). Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 8:162–169.
  • Hogan CA, Turner CW (1998). High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432–441.
  • Horwitz AR, Turner CW, Fabry DA. (1991). Effects of different frequency response strategies upon recognition and preference for audible speech stimuli. J Speech Hear Res 34:1185–1196.
  • Humes L, Hackett T. (1990). Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1:101–108.
  • Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Ringdahl A, Israelsson B. (1991). Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. Ear Hear 12:251–260.
  • Lutman ME, Clark J. (1986). Speech identification under simulated hearing-aid frequency response characteristics in relation to sensitivity, frequency resolution and temporal resolution. J Acoust SocAm 80:1030–1040.
  • Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. (1986). A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. Audiology 25:210–226.
  • Murray N, Byrne D. (1986). Performance of hearing-impaired and normal hearing listeners with various high-frequency cut-offs in hearing aids. Aust J Audiol 8:21–28.
  • Pavlovic CV. (1989). Speech spectrum considerations and speech intelligibility predictions in hearing aid evaluations. J Speech Hear Disord 54:3–8.
  • Rankovic CM. (1991). An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res 34: 391–402.
  • Skinner MW (1980). Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: effects of high-frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am 67:306–317.
  • Skinner MW. (1988). Hearing Aid Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. (1980). Statistical Methods 7th Ed. Ames, LA: Iowa State University Press.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1996). Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. J Speech Hear Res 39:901–911.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1998). Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. J Speech Hear Res 41:315–326.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1999). Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12–20.
  • Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Kalberer A, Creutz T. (1994). Situational Hearing Aid Response Profile Users Manual (SHARP, υ 2.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
  • Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis DL, Hoover BE. (1998). A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131–138.
  • Stone MA, Moore BCJ. (1992). Syllabic compression: effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol 26:351–361.
  • Turner CW, Cummings KJ. (1999). Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 8:47–56.
  • van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Plomp R. (1995). Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing-impaired. J Speech Hear Res 38:211–221.
  • Van Tasell DJ, Yanz JL. (1987). Speech recognition threshold in noise: effects of hearing loss, frequency response, and speech materials. J Speech Hear Res 30:377–386.
  • Verschuure J, Maas AJJ, Stikvoort E, de Jong RM, Goedegebure A, Dreschler WA. (1995). Compression and its effect on the speech signal. Ear Hear 17:162–175.