Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(02): 103-114
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17068
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression and Digital Noise Reduction on Word Recognition and Satisfaction Ratings in Noise in Adult Hearing Aid Users

Patrick N. Plyler
*   Department of Audiology & Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN
,
Brittney Tardy
*   Department of Audiology & Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN
,
Mark Hedrick
*   Department of Audiology & Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC) and digital noise reduction (DNR) are hearing aid features often used simultaneously in the adult population with hearing loss. Although each feature has been studied extensively in isolation, the effects of using them in combination are unclear.

Purpose:

The effects of NLFC and DNR in noise on word recognition and satisfaction ratings in noise in adult hearing aid users were evaluated.

Research Design:

A repeated measures design was used.

Study Sample:

Two females and 13 males between the ages of 55 and 83 yr who were experienced hearing aid users participated. Thirteen were experienced with NLFC and all were experienced with DNR. Each participant was fit with Phonak Bolero Q90-P hearing instruments using their specific audiometric data and the Desired Sensation Level v5.0 (adult) fitting strategy. Fittings were verified with probe microphone measurements using speech at 65-dB sound pressure level (SPL). NLFC verification was performed using the Protocol for the Provision of Amplification, Version 2014.01.

Data Collection and Analysis:

All testing was conducted in a double-walled sound booth. Four hearing aid conditions were used for all testing: Baseline (NLFC off, DNR off), NLFC only, DNR only, and Combination (NLFC on, DNR on). A modified version of the Pascoe’s High-Frequency Word List was presented at 65-dB SPL with speech spectrum noise at 6-dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and 1-dB SNR for each hearing aid condition. Listener satisfaction ratings were obtained after each listening condition in terms of word comfort, word clarity, and average satisfaction. Two-way repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to assess listener performance. Pairwise comparisons were then completed for significant main effects.

Results:

Word recognition results indicated a significant SNR effect only (6 dB SNR > 1 dB SNR). Satisfaction ratings results indicated a significant SNR and hearing aid condition effect for clarity, comfort, and average satisfaction. Clarity ratings were significantly higher for DNR and Combination than NLFC. Comfort ratings were significantly higher for DNR than NLFC. Average satisfaction was significantly higher for DNR and Combination than for NLFC. Also, average ratings were significantly higher for Combination than Baseline.

Conclusions:

Activating NLFC or DNR in isolation or in combination did not significantly impact word recognition in noise. Activating NLFC in isolation reduced satisfaction ratings relative to the DNR or Combination conditions. The isolated use of DNR significantly improved all satisfaction ratings when compared with the isolated use of NLFC. These findings suggest NLFC should not be used in isolation and should be coupled with DNR for best results. Future research should include a field trial as this was a limitation of the study.

Key Words

digital noise reduction - hearing aid - nonlinear frequency compression
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alcántara JL, Moore BCJ, 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, 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
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1999. Maximum Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms (ANSI S3. 1-1999) . New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2010. Specification for Audiometers (S3.6) . New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • Bagatto M, Moodie S, Brown C, Malandrino A, Richert F, Clench D, Scollie S. 2016; Prescribing and verifying hearing aids applying the American Academy of Audiology pediatric amplification guideline: protocols and outcomes from the Ontario Infant Hearing Program. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (03) 188-203
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bentler R, Wu YH, Kettel J, Hurtig R. 2008; Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol 47 (08) 447-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bohnert A, Nyffeler M, Keilmann A. 2010; Advantages of a nonlinear frequency compression algorithm in noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267 (07) 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    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
  • Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ. 2014; Benefit from nonlinear 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
  • 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
  • Lowery KJ, Plyler PN. 2013; The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (08) 649-659
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McDermott H, Henshall K. 2010; The use of frequency compression by cochlear implant recipients with postoperative acoustic hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (06) 380-389
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miller CW, Bates E, Brennan M. 2016; The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 55 (05) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mueller HG, Ricketts TA. 2005; Digital noise reduction: much ado about something?. Hear J 58 (01) 10-18
    Google Scholar
  • Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. 2006; The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 10 (02) 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Perreau AE, Bentler RA, Tyler RS. 2013; The contribution of a frequency-compression hearing aid to contralateral cochlear implant performance. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (02) 105-120
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pickett JM, Martin ES, Johnson D, Brand Smith S, Daniel Z, Willis D, Otis W. 1970. On patterns of speech feature reception by deaf listeners. In: Fant G. International Symposium on Speech Communication Ability and Profound Deafness. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association; paper, 12.
    Google 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
  • Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. 2005; Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (05) 270-277
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle 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
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Velleman PF, Wilkinson L. 1993; Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. Am Stat 47: 65-72
    Google Scholar
  • Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Edwards B, Olson L. 2000; Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (10) 540-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar