Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 395-409

  Kates, James M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic range compression; Hearing aids; Speech intelligibility index; Speech quality index

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HEARING AID; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; PERCEPTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PERCEPTION DISORDER; PROSTHESIS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 77952719321     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992020903426256     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Amlani A.M., Punch J.L. & Ching T.Y.C. 2002. Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fi tting. Trends Amp , 6, 81-129.
2. ANSI S3.5-1997. American National Standard:Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index . New York: American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.22-1996.
3. American National Standard: Specifi cation of Hearing Aid Characteristics . New York: American National Standards Institute.
4. Arehart K.H., Kates J.M. & Anderson M.C. 2009. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear fi ltering on perceived sound quality. Submitted for publication.
5. Bisgaard N. 2007. Report on Selection of Standard Audiograms for the ISMADHA Measurement Procedure. EHIMA Technical Committee Report, August 6, 2007.
6. Braida L.D., Durlach N.I., Lippmann R.P., Hicks B.L., Rabinowitz W.M. et al. 1979. Hearing aids: A review of past research on linear amplifi cation, amplitude compression, and frequency lowering. Am Speech Lang Hear Assn , ASHA Monograph 19.
7. Bustamante D.K. & Braida L.D. 1987. Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners. J Rehab Res Dev , 24, 149-160.
8. Byrne D. & Dillon H. 1986. The National-Acoustic-Laboratories NAL new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency-response of a hearing-aid. Ear Hear , 7, 257-265.
9. Byrne D., Dillon H., Ching T., Katsch R. & Keidser G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fi tting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol , 12, 37-51.
10. Carter G.C., Knapp C.H. & Nuttall A.H. 1973. Estimation of the magnitudesquared coherence function via overlapped fast Fourier transform processing. IEEE Trans. Audio and Electroacoustics , 21, 337-344.
11. Crain T.R. & Yund E.W. 1995. The effect of multichannel compression on vowel and stop-consonant discrimination in normal-hearing and hearingimpaired subjects. Ear Hear , 16, 529-543.
12. Davies-Venn E., Souza P. & Fabry D. 2007. Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry. J Am Acad Audiol , 18, 688-699.
13. Dillon H. 1996. Compression? Yes, but for high or low frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear , 17, 287-307.
14. Eisenberg L.S., Dirks D.D., Takayanagi S. & Martinez A.S. 1998. Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for fi ltered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. J Speech Lang Hear Res , 41, 327-339.
15. Elberling C. 1999. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol , 10, 248-260.
16. Fredelake S., Holube I. & Hansen M. 2006. Comparison of objective and subjective measures for sound quality and speech intelligibility in nonlinear hearing instruments, Int. Hearing Aid Conf., Lake Tahoe, USA, August 2006.
17. Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fi ttings. 1. Patterns of benefi t. Int J Audiol , 45, 130-152.
18. Hansen M. 2002. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear & Hear , 23, 369-380.
19. International Telecommunication Union (2003). ITU-R: BS.1284-1, 'General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality.'
20. Jenstad L.M. & Souza P.E. 2005. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res , 48, 651-667.
21. Kates J.M. 1992. On using coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am , 91, 2236-2244.
22. Kates J.M. 2005. Principles of digital compression. Trends Amp , 9, 45-76.
23. Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2005a. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am , 117, 2224-2237.
24. Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2005b. Multi-channel dynamic-range compression using digital frequency warping. EURASIP J Appl Sig Proc , 3003-3014.
25. Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2007. A time-frequency modulation model of speech quality. Proc. 2007 IEEE Workshop on Appl. of Sig. Process. to Audio and Acoustics, New Paltz, New York, Oct 21-24, 2007.
26. Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2009a. A speech quality metric based on a cochlear model. Acoust Soc Am , 157th Meeting, Portland, USA, May 21, 2009.
27. Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2009b. The hearing aid speech quality index (HASQI). Submitted for publication.
28. Keidser G. & Grant F. 2001. The preferred number of channels one, two, or four in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression WRDC devices. Ear Hear , 22, 516-527.
29. Keidser G., Brew C., Brewer S., Dillon H., Grant F. et al. 2005. The preferred response slopes and two-channel compression ratios in twenty listening conditions by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners and their relationship to the acoustic input. Int J Audiol , 44, 656-670.
30. King A.B. & Martin M.C. 1984. Is AGC benefi cial in hearing aids? Brit J Audiol , 18, 31-38.
31. Laurence R.F., Moore B.C.J. & Glasberg B.R. 1983. A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fi delity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. Brit J Audiol , 17, 31-48.
32. Levitt H. 2003. Compression amplifi cation. In: Bacon S.P., Fay R.R. & A.N. Popper (eds.) Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants. New York: Springer-Verlag.
33. Lippmann R.P., Braida L.D. & Durlach N.I. 1981. Study of multichannel amplitude compression and linear amplifi cation for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am , 69, 524-534.
34. Ma J., Hu Y. & Loizou P.C. 2009. Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions. J Acoust Soc Am , 125, 3387-3405.
35. Moore B.C.J. 2000. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fi tting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore 'normal' loudness for speech at different levels, Br J Audiol , 34, 165-177.
36. Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Hellman S. & Levitt H. 1995a. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids. Ear Hear , 16, 407-416.
37. Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Mackersie C., Hellman S. & Levitt H. 1995b. Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: Paired comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am , 98, 3182-3187.
38. 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. J Acoust Soc Am , 103, 2273-2281.
39. Nilsson M., Ghent R.M., Bray V. et al. 2005. Development of a test environment to evaluate performance of modern hearing aid features. J Am Acad Audiol , 16, 27-41.
40. Nilsson M., Soli S.D. & Sullivan J. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am , 95, 1085-1099
41. 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.
42. Preminger J.E. &Van Tasell D.J. 1995. Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. J Sp Hear Res , 38, 714-725.
43. Scollie S., Seewald R., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M. et al. 2005. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amp , 9, 159-197.
44. Shi L-F. & Doherty K.A. 2008. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Sp Lang Hear Res , 51, 1328-1340.
45. Smith J.O. & Abel J.S. 1999. Bark and ERB bilinear transforms. IEEE Trans Sp Audiol Proc , 7, 697-708.
46. Souza P.E. 2002. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amp , 6, 131-165.
47. Souza P.E., Jenstad L.M. & Folino R. 2005. Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: Effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear , 26, 120-131.
48. Souza P.E. & Turner C.W. 1999. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplifi ed speech. Ear Hear , 20, 12-20.
49. Stelmachowicz P., Lewis D. & Creutz T. 2009. Situational Hearing-Aid Response Profi le (SHARP, v6.0) User ' s Manual . Omaha, NE: Boys Town Nat. Res. Hosp.
50. 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.
51. van Buuren R.A., Festen J.M. & 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. Villchur E. 1973. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am , 53, 163-174.
53. Yund E.W. & Buckles K.M. 1995a. Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am , 97, 1206-1223.
54. Yund E.W. & Buckles K.M. 1995b. Enhanced speech perception at low signalto-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am , 97, 1224-1240.