Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(09): 823-837
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16158
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss

Marc A. Brennan
*   Amplification and Perception Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Dawna Lewis
*   Amplification and Perception Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Ryan McCreery
*   Amplification and Perception Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Judy Kopun
*   Amplification and Perception Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Joshua M. Alexander
†   Ear Laboratory, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) can improve the audibility of high-frequency sounds by lowering them to a frequency where audibility is better; however, this lowering results in spectral distortion. Consequently, performance is a combination of the effects of increased access to high-frequency sounds and the detrimental effects of spectral distortion. Previous work has demonstrated positive benefits of NFC on speech recognition when NFC is set to improve audibility while minimizing distortion. However, the extent to which NFC impacts listening effort is not well understood, especially for children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL).

Purpose:

To examine the impact of NFC on recognition and listening effort for speech in adults and children with SNHL.

Research Design:

Within-subject, quasi-experimental study. Participants listened to amplified nonsense words that were (1) frequency-lowered using NFC, (2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the restricted bandwidth (RBW) of conventional hearing aid processing, or (3) low-pass filtered at 10 kHz to simulate extended bandwidth (EBW) amplification.

Study Sample:

Fourteen children (8–16 yr) and 14 adults (19–65 yr) with mild-to-severe SNHL.

Intervention:

Participants listened to speech processed by a hearing aid simulator that amplified input signals to fit a prescriptive target fitting procedure.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants were blinded to the type of processing. Participants' responses to each nonsense word were analyzed for accuracy and verbal-response time (VRT; listening effort). A multivariate analysis of variance and linear mixed model were used to determine the effect of hearing-aid signal processing on nonsense word recognition and VRT.

Results:

Both children and adults identified the nonsense words and initial consonants better with EBW and NFC than with RBW. The type of processing did not affect the identification of the vowels or final consonants. There was no effect of age on recognition of the nonsense words, initial consonants, medial vowels, or final consonants. VRT did not change significantly with the type of processing or age.

Conclusion:

Both adults and children demonstrated improved speech recognition with access to the high-frequency sounds in speech. Listening effort as measured by VRT was not affected by access to high-frequency sounds.

Key Words

auditory rehabilitation - frequency lowering - hearing aids and assistive listening devices - pediatric audiology - speech perception

This work was supported by the following NIH grants: R01 DC04300, R01 DC013591, P20 GM109023, and P30 DC-4662.


This work was presented at the 2015 American Speech Language Hearing Association Convention, Denver, CO.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alcántara JL, Moore BC, Kühnel V, Launer S. 2003; Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol 42 (01) 34-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM. 2013; Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. Semin Hear 34: 86-109
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM. 2016; Nonlinear frequency compression: influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 139 (02) 938-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; 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 35 (05) 519-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM, Masterson K. 2015; Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition. Ear Hear 36 (02) e35-e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1997. American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2004. Specification for Octave-Band and Fractional-Octave-Band Analog and Digital Filters. ANSI S1.11-2004. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Rockville, MD: ASHA;
    Google Scholar
  • Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. 2013; Working memory, age, and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear 34 (03) 251-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baayen RH, Milin P. 2015; Analyzing reaction times. Int J Psychol Res (Medellin) 3: 12-28
    Google Scholar
  • Baer T, Moore BCJ, Gatehouse S. 1993; Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. J Rehabil Res Dev 30 (01) 49-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015; Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67: 1-48
    Google Scholar
  • Bentler RA, Pavlovic CV. 1989; Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear 10 (01) 58-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bentler R, Walker E, McCreery R, Arenas RM, Roush P. 2014; Nonlinear frequency compression in hearing aids: impact on speech and language development. Ear Hear 35 (04) e143-e152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bess FH, Gustafson SJ, Corbett BA, Lambert EW, Camarata SM, Hornsby BWY. 2016; Salivary cortisol profiles of children with hearing loss. Ear Hear 37 (03) 334-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boersma P, Weenink D. 2013 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.51. http://www.praat.org/ . Accessed November 8, 2013
  • Brennan MA, McCreery R, Kopun J, Hoover B, Alexander J, Lewis D, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; 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 25 (10) 983-998
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. 2013; Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Ear Hear 34 (01) 29-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Buss E, Hall 3rd JW, Grose JH, Dev MB. 1999; Development of adult-like performance in backward, simultaneous, and forward masking. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42 (04) 844-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Day J, Zhang V, Dillon H, Van Buynder P, Seeto M, Hou S, Marnane V, Thomson J, Street L, Wong A, Burns L, Flynn C. 2013; A randomized controlled trial of nonlinear frequency compression versus conventional processing in hearing aids: speech and language of children at three years of age. Int J Audiol 52 (Suppl 2) S46-S54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TYC, Dillon H, Byrne D. 1998; Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (02) 1128-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D. 2001; Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 22 (03) 212-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Choi S, Lotto A, Lewis D, Hoover B, Stelmachowicz P. 2008; Attentional modulation of word recognition by children in a dual-task paradigm. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51 (04) 1042-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Johnson J, Rivera I. 2011; Cochlear dead regions in typical hearing aid candidates: prevalence and implications for use of high-frequency speech cues. Ear Hear 32 (03) 339-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. 2014; The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 35 (06) 600-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dickinson AM, Baker R, Siciliano C, Munro KJ. 2014; Adaptation to nonlinear frequency compression in normal-hearing adults: a comparison of training approaches. Int J Audiol 53 (10) 719-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. New York, NY: Thieme;
    Google Scholar
  • Downs DW. 1982; Effects of hearing and use on speech discrimination and listening effort. J Speech Hear Disord 47 (02) 189-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. 2015; Predictors of aided speech recognition, with and without frequency compression, in older adults. Int J Audiol 54 (07) 467-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gatehouse S, Gordon J. 1990; Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. Br J Audiol 24 (01) 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. 2009; Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 48 (09) 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glista D, Scollie S, Sulkers J. 2012; Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing aid fitting in older children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (06) 1765-1787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gustafson S, McCreery R, Hoover B, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz P. 2014; Listening effort and perceived clarity for normal-hearing children with the use of digital noise reduction. Ear Hear 35 (02) 183-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hicks CB, Tharpe AM. 2002; Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (03) 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hillock-Dunn A, Buss E, Duncan N, Roush PA, Leibold LJ. 2014; Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech identification in children with hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (03) 353-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hogan CA, Turner CW. 1998; High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104 (01) 432-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ. 2014; 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 53 (04) 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hornsby BW. 2013; The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear 34 (05) 523-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hornsby BWY, Johnson EE, Picou E. 2011; Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding. Ear Hear 32 (05) 543-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hornsby BWY, Werfel K, Camarata S, Bess FH. 2014; Subjective fatigue in children with hearing loss: some preliminary findings. Am J Audiol 23 (01) 129-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Houben R, van Doorn-Bierman M, Dreschler WA. 2013; Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort. Int J Audiol 52 (11) 753-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE, Christensen L, Thomas T, Bess FH, Hedley-Williams A, Bentler R. 1999; A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42 (01) 65-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • John A, Wolfe J, Scollie S, Schafer E, Hudson M, Woods W, Wheeler J, Hudgens K, Neumann S. 2014; Evaluation of wideband frequency responses and nonlinear frequency compression for children with cookie-bite audiometric configurations. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (10) 1022-1033
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kahneman D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.;
    Google Scholar
  • Kimlinger C, McCreery R, Lewis D. 2015; High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (02) 128-137
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kokx-Ryan M, Cohen J, Cord MT, Walden TC, Makashay MJ, Sheffield BM, Brungart DS. 2015; Benefits of nonlinear frequency compression in adult hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (10) 838-855
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. 1977; The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (01) 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lenth RV. 2001; Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Stat 55: 187-193
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lewis D, Schmid K, O’Leary S, Spalding J, Heinrichs-Graham E, High R. 2016; Effects of noise on speech recognition and listening effort in children with normal-hearing and children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (05) 1218-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mackersie CL, Crocker TL, Davis RA. 2004; Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions. J Am Acad Audiol 15 (07) 498-507
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Alexander J, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; The influence of audibility on speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (04) 440-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2013; Maximizing audibility and speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression by estimating audible bandwidth. Ear Hear 34 (02) e24-e27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. 2011; Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (06) 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. 2013; The effects of limited bandwidth and noise on verbal processing time and word recall in normal-hearing children. Ear Hear 34 (05) 585-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Oleson J, Bentler R, Holte L, Roush P. 2015; Speech recognition and parent ratings from auditory development questionnaires in children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 36 (Suppl 1) 60S-75S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McDermott HJ. 2011; A technical comparison of digital frequency-lowering algorithms available in two current hearing aids. PLoS One 6 (07) e22358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McGarrigle R, Munro KJ, Dawes P, Stewart AJ, Moore DR, Barry JG, Amitay S. 2014; Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’. Int J Audiol 53 (07) 433-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Norman DA, Bobrow DG. 1975; On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognit Psychol 7: 44-64
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ohlenforst B, Zekveld AA, Jansma EP, Wang Y, Naylor G, Lorens A, Lunner T, Kramer SE. 2017; Effects of hearing impairment and hearing aid amplification on listening effort: a systematic review. Ear Hear 38 (03) 267-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pavlovic CV. 1987; Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. J Acoust Soc Am 82 (02) 413-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BW, Humes LE, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie CL, Naylor G, Phillips NA, Richter M, Rudner M, Sommers MS, Tremblay KL, Wingfield A. 2016; Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37 (Suppl 1) 5S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picou EM, Marcrum SC, Ricketts TA. 2015; 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 54 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picou EM, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. 2013; How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear 34 (05) e52-e64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pisoni DB, Manous LM, Dedina MJ. 1987; Comprehension of natural and synthetic speech: effects of predictability on the verification of sentences controlled for intelligibility. Comput Speech Lang 2 (3-4) 303-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pittman AL. 2008; Short-term word-learning rate in children with normal hearing and children with hearing loss in limited and extended high-frequency bandwidths. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51 (03) 785-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. 2000; Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43 (06) 1389-1401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Preminger JE, Carpenter R, Ziegler CH. 2005; A clinical perspective on cochlear dead regions: intelligibility of speech and subjective hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (08) 600-613, quiz 631–632
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • R Core Team 2016. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria:
    Google Scholar
  • Rakerd B, Seitz PF, Whearty M. 1996; Assessing the cognitive demands of speech listening for people with hearing losses. Ear Hear 17 (02) 97-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ratcliff R.. 1993; Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol Bull 114 (03) 510-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. 2009; Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (05) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. 2005; The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. 2005; Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 44 (05) 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. 2006; Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 45 (11) 619-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NB, Gehani N. 2013; Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (05) 1349-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE, Choi S, Hoover B. 2007; Effect of stimulus bandwidth on auditory skills in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 28 (04) 483-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. 2001; Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 110 (04) 2183-2190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Storkel HL, Hoover JR. 2010; An online calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on the basis of child corpora of spoken American English. Behav Res Methods 42 (02) 497-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tomblin JB, Harrison M, Ambrose SE, Walker EA, Oleson JJ, Moeller MP. 2015; Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 36 (Suppl 1) 76S-91S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Turner CW, Cummings KJ. 1999; Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 8 (01) 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Whelan R. 2008; Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychol Rec 58: 475-482
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Hudson M, Boretzki M, Scollie S, Woods W, Wheeler J, Hudgens K, Neumann S. 2015; Evaluation of wideband frequency responses and non-linear frequency compression for children with mild to moderate high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol 54 (03) 170-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T. 2010; Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (10) 618-628
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T, Hudson M. 2011; Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar