Effect of Compression Ratio on Speech Recognition and Speech-Quality Ratings with Wide Dynamic Range Compression Amplification

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 456-468

  Boike, Kumiko T ^a,b   Souza, Pamela E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Compression; Hearing aid; Hearing loss; Speech quality; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHYSIOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT PROJECTS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 0034168017     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4302.456     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. American National Standards Institute. (1996a). American national standard for specification of hearing aid characteristics (ANSI 3.22-1996). New York: Author.
2. American National Standards Institute. (1996b). Specifications for audiometers (ANSI 3.6-1989). New York: Author.
3. Byrne, D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: Where to? Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 377-395.
4. Byrne, D., & Walker, G. (1982). The effects of multichannel compression and expansion on perceived quality of speech. Australian Journal of Audiology, 4, 1-8.
5. Cool Edit Pro (Version 1.1) [Computer software]. (1998). Phoenix, AZ: Syntrillium Software Corporation.
6. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Gilmore, C. (1987). Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear and Hearing, 8 (Suppl.), 119S-126S.
7. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C., & Pusakulich, K. M. (1988). Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear and Hearing, 9, 198-207.
8. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C., & Pusakulich, K. M. (1989). The Connected Speech Test Version 3: Audiovisual administration. Ear and Hearing, 10, 29-32.
9. Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Rivera, I. M. (1991). Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 904-915.
10. Cox, R. M., & McDaniel, D. M. (1989). Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 347-352.
11. Dillon, H. (1996). Tutorial Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities and with what response times? Ear and Hearing, 17, 287-307.
12. Dubno, J. R., Dirks, D. D., & Schaefer, A. B. (1989). Stop consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss: II. Articulation Index predictions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 355-364.
13. Dubno, J. R., & Schaefer, A. B. (1992). Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 2110-2121.
14. Fikret-Pasa, S. (1994). The effect of compression ratio on speech intelligibility and quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2992.
15. Gabrielsson, A., Hagerman, B., Bech-Kristensen, T., & Lundberg, G. (1990). Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency responses and sound levels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1359-1366.
16. Gabrielsson, A., Schenkman, B. N., & Hagerman, B. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 166-177.
17. GennEM (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. (1997) Burlington, Ontario, Canada: Gennum Corporation.
18. Gordon-Salant, S. (1986). Effects of aging on response criteria in speech-recognition tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 155-162.
19. Hawkins, D. B. (1985). Reflections on amplification: Validation of performance. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 18, 42-54.
20. Hawkins, D. B., & Naidoo, S. V. (1993). Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 4, 221-228.
21. Humes, L. E. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 26-39.
22. Humes, L. E., Christensen, L., Thomas, T., Bess, F. H., 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. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 65-79.
23. Humes, L. E., Halling, D., & Coughlin, M. (1996). Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 923-935.
24. Iskowitz, M. (1999, March 15). Back to the future in fitting. Advance, 7-12.
25. Kates, J. M., & Kozma-Spytek, L. (1994). Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 3586-3594.
26. Kozma-Spytek, L., Kates, J. M., & Revoile, S. G. (1996). Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak-clipped speech: Results for listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1115-1123.
27. Kuk, F. K. (1996). Theoretical and practical considerations in compression hearing aids. Trends in Amplification, 1, 5-39.
28. Lawson, G. D., & Chial, M. R. (1982). Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 1781-1787.
29. Leijon, A., Lindkvist, A., Ringdahl, A., & Israelsson, B. (1991). Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. Ear and Hearing, 12, 251-260.
30. Moore, B. C. J., Peters, R. W., & Stone, M. A. (1999). Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 400-411.
31. Mueller, H. G. (1996). Hearing aids and people: Strategies for successful match. Hearing Journal, 49, 13-28.
32. Neuman, A. C., Bakke, M. H., Hellman, S., & Levitt, H. (1994). Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: Paired-comparison judgments of quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 1471-1478.
33. Neuman, A. C., Bakke, M. H., Mackersie, C., Hellman, S., & Levitt, H. (1998). The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 2273-2281.
34. Peters, R. W., Moore, B. C. J., & Baer, T. (1998). Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 557-586.
35. Punch, J. L., & Beck, E. L. (1980). Low frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 325-335.
36. Souza, P. E., & Turner, C. W. (1994). Masking of speech in young and elderly listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 655-661.
37. Souza, P. E., & Turner, C. W. (1996). Effect of single-channel compression of temporal speech information. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 901-911.
38. Souza, P. E., & Turner, C. W. (1998). Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 315-326.
39. Sreenivas, C., Fourakis, M., & Davidson, S. (1996). Effects of varying release times on speech perception using syllabic compression. Paper presented at the American Academy of Audiology Convention, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
40. Stelmachowicz, P. G., Lewis, D. E., Hoover, B., & Keefe, D. H. (1999). Subjective effects of peak clipping and compression limiting in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 412-422.
41. Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A "rationalized" arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 455-462.
42. Sullivan, J. A., Allsman, C. S., Nielsen, L. B., & Mobley, J. P. (1992). Amplification for listeners with steeply sloping, high-frequency hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 13, 35-45.
43. Sullivan, J. A., Levitt, H., Hwang, J.-Y., & Hennessey, A.-M. (1988). An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods. Ear and Hearing, 9, 22-32.
44. Tillman, T., & Carhart, R. (1966). An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (Tech. Rep. No. SAM-TR-66-55). Brooks Airforce Base, Texas: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
45. van Buuren, R. A., Festen, J. M., & Houtgast, T. (1999). Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 2903-2913.
46. Zurek, P. M., & Delhorne, L. A. (1987). Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1548-1559.