Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 211-221

  Boyle, Patrick J ^a   Bchner, Andreas ^b   Stone, Michael A ^a   Lenarz, Thomas ^b   Moore, Brian C J ^a  

^a University of Cambridge   (United Kingdom)

^b HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automatic gain control; Cochlear implant; Compression; Compression speed

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MUSIC; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOFTWARE; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 67449086466     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020802581982     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Blamey, P.J. 2005. Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): A digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif, 9, 77-98.
2. Clark, G.M., Blamey, P.J., Brown, A.M., Gusby, P.A. Dowell, R.C. et al 1987. The University of Melbourne-Nucleus Multi-electrode Cochlear Implant. Basel: Karger.
3. Conway, M.J. Boyle, P.J. 1989.Design of the UCH/RNID cochlear implant system. J Laryngol Otol, Suppl, 18, 4-10.
4. Crain, T.R. van Tasell, D.J. 1994. Effect of peak clipping on speech recognition threshold. Ear Hear, 15, 443-453
5. Dawson, P.W., Vandali, A.E., Knight, M.R. Heasman, J.M. 2007. Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in Nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 163-176
6. Donaldson, G.S. Allen, S.L. 2003. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear, 24, 392-405.
7. Fowler, E.P. 1936. A method for the early detection of otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol, 24, 731-741
8. Frijns, J.H., Klop, W.M., Bonnet, R.M. Briaire, J.J. 2003. Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol, 123, 138-142
9. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. Elberling, C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol. 42 Suppl, 1, S77-85.
10. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. Elberling, C. 2006a. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130-152 (Pubitemid 43315652)
11. Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. Elberling, C. 2006b. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45, 153-171 (Pubitemid 43315653)
12. Hochmair-Desoyer, I., Schulz, E., Moser, L. Schmidt, M. 1997. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol, 18, S83.
13. Hood, J.D. 1972. Fundamentals of identification of sensorineural hearing loss. Sound, 6, 21-26
14. House, W.F. 1976. Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 85, 1-93.
15. James, C.J., Blamey, P.J., Martin, L., Swanson, B., Just, Y., et al. 2002. Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: A preliminary study. Ear Hear, , S, 23, 49S-58.
16. James, C.J., Skinner, M.W., Martin, L.F., Holden, L.K. Galvin, K.L. et al 2003. An investigation of input level range for the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: Speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear, 24, 157-174
17. Killion, M.C. 1997. Hearing aids: Past, present and future: Moving toward normal conversations in noise. Br J Audiol, 31, 141-148
18. Koch, D.B., Osberger, M.J., Segel, P. Kessler, D. 2004. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 214-223
19. Levitt, H. 1982. Speech discrimination ability in the hearing impaired: spectrum considerations. In G.A. Studebaker F.H. Bess (eds.) The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, pp. 32-43.
20. Levitt, H., Cudahy, E., Hwang, W.H., Kennedy, E. Link, C. 1987. Towards a general measure of distortion. J Rehab Res Dev, 24, 283-292
21. MacLeod, A. Summerfield, Q. 1990. A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: Rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol, 24, 29-43.
22. Moore, B.C.J. 2003. Coding of sounds in the auditory system and its relevance to signal processing and coding in cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol, 24, 243-254
23. Moore, B.C.J. 2007. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
24. Moore, B.C.J. 2008. The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: Theoretical and practical considerations, and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif, 12, 102-112
25. Moore, B.C.J. Glasberg, B.R. 1988. A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 22, 93-104.
26. Moore, B.C.J. Glasberg, B.R. 1993. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 2050-2062
27. Moore, B.C.J., Glasberg, B.R. Stone, M.A. 1991. Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 25, 171-182
28. Moore B.C.J. Stone M.A. Fü llgrabe C. Glasberg B.R. Puria S. 2008. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-tomoderate hearing loss. Ear Hear, 29, 907-922
29. Moore, B.C.J. Tan, C.T. 2003. Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 408-419
30. Moore, B.C.J., Wojtczak, M. Vickers, D.A. 1996. Effect of loudness recruitment on the perception of amplitude modulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 481-489
31. Pearsons, K.S., Bennett, R.L. Fidell, S. 1976. Speech Levels in Various Environments. Report No. 3281. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
32. 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
33. Plomp, R. Mimpen, A.M. 1979. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiol, 18, 43-53.
34. Robles, L. Ruggero, M.A. 2001. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev, 81, 1305-1352
35. Schmidt M., Hochmair-Desoyer I., Schulz E. Moser L. 1997. Der HSM-Satztest. Fortschritte der Akustik-DAGA '97, Oldenburg.
36. Seligman, P.M., Patrick, J.F., Tong, Y.C., Clark, G.M. Dowell, R.C. et al 1984. A signal processor for a multiple-electrode hearing prosthesis. Acta Otolaryngol, 411 suppl., 135-139
37. Shannon, R.V. 1983. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. 1. Basic psychophysics. Hear Res, 11, 157-189
38. Simmons, F.B. 1966. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. Arch Otolaryngol, 84, 2-54.
39. Skinner, M.W., Holden, L.K., Holden, T.A. Demorest, M.E. 1999. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 42, 814-828
40. Souza, P.E. 2002. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif, 6, 131-165
41. Spahr, A.J., Dorman, M.F. Loiselle, L.H. 2007. Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dynamic range. Ear Hear, 28, 260-275
42. Steinberg, J.C. Gardner, M.B. 1937. The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am, 9, 11-23.
43. Stöbich, B., Zierhofer, C.M. Hochmair, E.S. 1999. Influence of automatic gain control parameter settings on speech understanding of cochlear implant users employing the continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Ear Hear, 20, 104-116
44. Stone, M.A. Moore, B.C.J. 2003. Effect of the speed of a singlechannel dynamic range compressor on intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1023-1034
45. Stone, M.A. Moore, B.C.J. 2004. Side effects of fast-acting dynamic range compression that affect intelligibility in a competing speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2311-2323
46. Stone, M.A. Moore, B.C.J. 2007. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1654-1664
47. Stone, M.A. Moore, B.C.J. 2008. Effects of spectro-temporal modulation changes produced by multichannel compression on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1063-1076
48. Stone, M.A., Moore, B.C.J., Alcántara, J.I. Glasberg, B.R. 1999. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3603-3619
49. Studebaker, G.A. Sherbecoe, R.L. 2002. Intensity-importance functions for band-limited monosyllabic words. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 1422-1436
50. Studebaker, G.A., Sherbecoe, R.L., McDaniel, D.M. Gwaltney, C.A. 1999. Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2431-2444
51. van Buuren, R.A., Festen, J. Houtgast, T. 1999. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2903-2913
52. Verschuure, J., Maas, A.J.J., Stikvoort, E., de Jong, R.M., Goedegebure, A., et al. 1996. Compression and its effect on the speech signal. Ear Hear, 17, 162-175
53. Villchur, E. 1974. Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 56, 1601-1611
54. Zeng, F.-G. 2004. Compression and cochlear implants. In S.P. Bacon, A.N. Popper R.R. Fay (eds.) Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants. New York: Springer, pp. 184-220.