Sound Quality Effects of an Adaptive Nonlinear Frequency Compression Processor with Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

Abstract

Background:

Frequency lowering (FL) technology offers a means of improving audibility of high-frequency sounds. For some listeners, the benefit of such technology can be accompanied by a perceived degradation in sound quality, depending on the strength of the FL setting.

Purpose:

The studies presented in this article investigate the effect of a new type of FL signal processing for hearing aids, adaptive nonlinear frequency compression (ANFC), on subjective speech quality.

Research Design:

Listener ratings of sound quality were collected for speech stimuli processed with systematically varied fitting parameters.

Study Sample:

Study 1 included 40 normal-hearing (NH) adult and child listeners. Study 2 included 11 hearing-impaired (HI) adult and child listeners. HI listeners were fitted with laboratory-worn hearing aids for use during listening tasks.

Intervention:

Speech quality ratings were assessed across test conditions consisting of various strengths of static nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) and ANFC speech. Test conditions included those that were fine-tuned on an individual basis per hearing aid fitting and conditions that were modified to intentionally alter the sound quality of the signal.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Listeners rated speech quality using the MUlti Stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) test paradigm. Ratings were analyzed for reliability and to compare results across conditions.

Results:

Results show that interrater reliability is high for both studies, indicating that NH and HI listeners from both adult and child age groups can reliably complete the MUSHRA task. Results comparing sound quality ratings across experimental conditions suggest that both the NH and HI listener groups rate the stimuli intended to have poor sound quality (e.g., anchors and the strongest available parameter settings) as having below-average sound quality ratings. A different trend in the results is reported when considering the other experimental conditions across the listener groups in the studies. Speech quality ratings measured with NH listeners improve as the strength of ANFC decreases, with a range of bad to good ratings reported, on average. Speech quality ratings measured with HI listeners are similar and above-average for many of the experimental stimuli, including those with fine-tuned NFC and ANFC parameters.

Conclusions:

Overall, HI listeners provide similar sound quality ratings when comparing static and adaptive forms of frequency compression, especially when considering the individualized parameter settings. These findings suggest that a range in settings may result in above-average sound quality for adults and children with hearing impairment. Furthermore, the fitter should fine-tune FL parameters for each individual listener, regardless of type of FL technology.

Key Words

adults - children - frequency lowering - hearing aids - nonlinear frequency compression - sound quality

Findings from this study were in part presented at the American Academy of Audiology’s annual conference, AudiologyNow! in Phoenix, AZ, April, 2016, the International Hearing Aid Research Conference: IHCON 2016, and at A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification, 7th International Pediatric Conference, 2016.

This study was supported by Phonak AG.

• REFERENCES

• Alexander JM. 2013; Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. Semin Hear 34 (02) 86-109
• Bisgaard N, Vlaming MS, Dahlquist M. 2010; Standard audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 measurement procedure. Trends Amplif 14 (02) 113-120
• Boersma P, Weenink D. 2018 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.37. http://www.praat.org/ . Accessed March 14, 2018
• Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. 2015; Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 54 (01) 37-47
• Glista D, Hawkins M, Bohnert A, Rehmann J, Wolfe J, Scollie S. 2017; The effect of adaptive nonlinear frequency compression on phoneme perception. Am J Audiol 26 (04) 531-542
• 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
• Glista D, Scollie S, Moodie S, Easwar V. Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada (2014) The Ling 6(HL) test: typical pediatric performance data and clinical use evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (10) 1008-1021
• 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
• 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
• Huber R, Parsa V, Scollie S. 2014; Predicting the perceived sound quality of frequency-compressed speech. PLoS ONE 9 (11) e110260
• ITU 2014. Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Intermediate Quality Level of Audio Systems: Broadcasting Service (Sound). Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union;
• Johnson EE, Light KC. 2015; A patient-centered, provider-facilitated approach to the refinement of nonlinear frequency compression parameters based on subjective preference ratings of amplified sound quality. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (08) 689-702
• 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
• 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
• McDermott HJ. 2011; A technical comparison of digital frequency-lowering algorithms available in two current hearing aids. PLoS ONE 6 (07) e22358
• Parsa V, Scollie S, Glista D, Seelisch A. 2013; Nonlinear frequency compression: effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music. Trends Amplif 17 (01) 54-68
• 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
• Rehmann J, Jha S, Allegro Baumann S. 2016. SoundRecover2—The Adaptive Frequency Compression Algorithm [Technical Report]. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG;
• Salorio-Corbetto M, Baer T, Moore BCJ. 2017; Quality ratings of frequency-compressed speech by participants with extensive high-frequency dead regions in the cochlea. Int J Audiol 56 (02) 106-120
• Scollie S, Glista D, Seto J, Dunn A, Schuett B, Hawkins M, Parsa V. 2016; Fitting frequency-lowering signal processing applying the AAA Pediatric Amplification Guideline: updates and protocols. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (03) 219-236
• Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. 2006; Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 45 (11) 619-629
• Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NBH, Gehani N. 2013; Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (05) 1349-1363
• Wolfe J, Duke M, Schafer EC, Rehmann J, Jha S, Allegro Baumann S, Jones C. 2017; Preliminary evaluation of a novel non-linear frequency compression scheme for use in children. Int J Audiol 56 (12) 976-988
• Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T. 2010; Evaluation of non-linear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately-severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (10) 618-628
• 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