SII and fit-to-target analysis of compression system performance as a function of number of compression channels

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 45, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 630-644

  Woods, William S ^a,d   Van Tasell, Dianne J ^b   Rickert, Martin E ^c   Trine, Timothy D ^a  

^a Starkey Laboratories Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Starkey Hearing Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Cambridge algorithm; Compression; Hearing aid; Speech intelligibility index

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; AUDIOGRAPHY; LOUDNESS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33751564852     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020600937188     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting 1998. Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol, 7, 5-13
2. ANSI S3.22-2003 2003. Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. American National Standards Institute, New York.
3. ANSI S3.5-1997 1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. American National Standards Institute, New York.
4. ANSI S3.6-1996 1996. Specification for Audiometers. American National Standards Institute, New York.
5. Bentler, R.A. & Pavlovic, C.V. 1989. Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear, 10, 58-63.
6. Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Tran, K., Arlinger, S., Wilbraham, K., et al. 1994. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 2108-2120.
7. Ching, T.Y.-C., 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, 1128-1140.
8. Crain, T.R. & Yund, E.W. 1995. The effect of multichannel compression on vowel and stop-consonant discrimination in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Ear Hear, 16, 529-543.
9. Ewert, S.D. & Dau, T. 2004. External and internal limitations in amplitude-modulation processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 478-490.
10. Hansen, M. 2002. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear, 23, 369-380.
11. nd ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
12. Keidser, G. & Grant, F. 2001. The preferred number of channels (one, two, or four) in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) devices. Ear Hear, 22, 516-527.
13. Moore, B.C.J. 1990. How much do we gain by gain control in hearing aids? Acta Otolaryngol, Suppl, 469, 250-256.
14. Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R. & Stone, M.A. 1999a. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol, 33, 241-258.
15. Moore, B.C.J., Peters, R.W. & Stone, M.A. 1999b. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 400-411.
16. 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. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 1471-1478.
17. Plomp, R. 1988. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322-2327.
18. Plomp, R. 1989. Reply to Comments on 'The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function' [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 2322-2327 (1988)]' [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86, 425-427 (1989)]. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 2322-2327.
19. Plomp, R. 1994. Noise, amplification, and compression: Considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear, 15, 2-12.
20. Punch, J.L. & Beck, L.B. 1986. Relative effects of low-frequency amplification on syllable recognition and speech quality. Ear Hear, 7, 57-62.
21. Rankovic, C.M. 1991. An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 391-402.
22. Rankovic, C.M. 1995. Derivation of frequency-gain characteristics for maximizing speech reception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 913-929.
23. Rankovic, C.M., Freyman, R.L. & Zurek, P.M. 1992. Potential benefits of adaptive frequency-gain characteristics for speech reception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 354-362.
24. Seewald R.C., Cornelisse L.E., Ramji K.V., Sinclair S.T., Moodie K.S. et al. 1996. DSL® v4.1 for Windows®. University of Western Ontario.
25. Sherbecoe, R.L. & Studebaker, G.A. 1990. Regression equations for the transfer functions of ANSI S3.5-1969. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 2482-2483.
26. Skinner, M.W. 1980. Speech intelligibility in noise in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high-frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 306-317.
27. Souza, P.E. & Turner, C.W. 1999. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear, 20, 12-20.
28. Stelmachowicz, P., Lewis, D., Kalberer, A. & Creutz, T. 1994. Situational hearing-aid response profile users manual (SHARP v. 2.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
29. Stone, M.A. & Moore, B.C.J. 1992. Syllabic compression: Effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol, 26, 351-361.
30. Trine, T.D. & van Tasell, D.J. 2002. Digital hearing aid design: Fact vs. fantasy. The Hearing Journal, 55, 1-6.
31. van Dijkhuizen, J.N., Festen, J.M. & Plomp, R. 1991. The effect of frequency-selective attenuation on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in conditions of low-frequency noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 90, 885-894.
32. Villchur, E. 1973. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am, 53, 1646-1657.
33. Villchur, E. 1989. Comments on 'The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation transfer function' [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 2322-2327 (1988)]. J Acoust Soc Am, 86, 425-421.
34. Woods W., Frush R. & Van Tasell D. 1999. 'Preference Space' for parameters of two-channel speech compression. Proc. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, 235-238.
35. Yund, E. & Buckles, K. 1995. Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1206-1223.