scholarly journals Effects of hearing-aid dynamic range compression on spatial perception in a reverberant environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (4) ◽  
pp. 2556-2568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Gert Hassager ◽  
Alan Wiinberg ◽  
Torsten Dau
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Spatial Perception ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Reverberant Environment

Preserving spatial perception in reverberant environments using direct-sound driven dynamic range compression

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 3637-3637
Author(s):  
Henrik G. Hassager ◽  
Tobias May ◽  
Alan Wiinberg ◽  
Torsten Dau
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Spatial Perception ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Reverberant Environments

Effects of Coordinated Compression and Pinna Compensation Features on Horizontal Localization Performance in Hearing Aid Users

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
pp. 080-092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Denise Keenan ◽  
Jennifer Schumacher
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Localization Accuracy ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Localization Performance

Background: Hearing-impaired listeners localize sounds better unaided than aided. Wide dynamic range compression circuits operating independently at each ear in bilateral fittings, and microphone positions of different hearing aid styles, have been cited as a reason. Two hearing aid features, inter-ear coordinated compression (IE) and pinna compensation (PC), were developed to mitigate the compromised aided localization performance. Purpose: This study examined the effect of IE and PC on aided localization performance in the horizontal plane with hearing-impaired listeners. Research Design: A single-blind, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: A total of 10 experienced hearing aid users with bilaterally symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss who had previously participated in localization training were evaluated. Data Collection and Analysis: Localization performance was measured using 12 loudspeakers spaced 30° apart on the horizontal plane. Aided performance was evaluated using a behind-the-ear hearing aid at four settings: omnidirectional microphone (Omni), Omni microphone with the PC feature, Omni microphone with IE, and Omni microphone with the PC feature and IE together. In addition, unaided localization performance was measured. Results: Significant improvement in the localization accuracy was measured for sounds arriving from the back when comparing the PC with the Omni conditions. The use of IE reduced the magnitude of errors for some listeners for sounds originating from ±90°. The average reduction in the errors was 7.3°. Conclusions: This study confirmed that the use of the PC feature improved localization for sounds arriving from behind the listener. The use of IE may improve localization for some listeners for sounds arriving from the sides.

An Optimized Design Strategy for the Hardware Implementation of the Hearing Aid Algorithms

2015 ◽  
Vol 719-720 ◽  
pp. 548-553
Author(s):  
Feng Guo ◽  
Shan Shan Yong ◽  
Zhao Yang Guo ◽  
Xin An Wang ◽  
Guo Xin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Hardware Implementation ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Design Strategy ◽  
Optimized Design ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
The Common

In this paper, a new design strategy for the hardware implementation of hearing aid algorithms is proposed. Two familiar hearing aid algorithms—Wide Dynamic Range Compression (WDRC) and Automatic Gain Control (AGC)—are implemented in one circuit as an example. By putting the common arithmetic procedures into common module, the operation units can be used repeatedly. In this way, the area and power consumption are visibly reduced.

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing Strategies on Consonant Recognition

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Plyler ◽  
Mark Hedrick ◽  
Brittany Rinehart ◽  
Rebekah Tripp
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Previous Experience ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Subjective Preference

Background: Both wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree (CF) processing strategies in hearing aids were designed to improve listener comfort and consonant identification, yet few studies have actually compared them. Purpose: To determine whether CF processing provides equal or better consonant identification and subjective preference than WDRC. Research Design: A repeated-measures randomized design was used in which each participant identified consonants from prerecorded nonsense vowel–consonant–vowel syllables in three conditions: unaided, aided using CF processing, and aided using WDRC processing. For each of the three conditions, syllables were presented in quiet and in a speech-noise background. Participants were also asked to rate the two processing schemes according to overall preference, preference in quiet and noise, and sound quality. Study Sample: Twenty adults (seven females; mean age 69.7 yr) with ≥1 yr of hearing aid use participated. Ten participants had previous experience wearing aids with WDRC, and 10 had previous experience with CF processing. Participants were tested with both WDRC and CF processing. Data Collection and Analysis: Number of consonants correct were measured and used as the dependent variable in analyses of variance with subsequent post hoc testing. For subjective preference, a listener rating form was employed with subsequent χ2 analysis. Results: Overall results showed that signal-processing strategy did not significantly affect consonant identification or subjective preference, nor did previous hearing aid use influence results. Listeners with audiometric slopes exceeding 11 dB per octave, however, preferred CF processing and performed better in noise with CF processing. Conclusion: CF processing is a viable alternative to WDRC for listeners with more severely sloping audiometric contours.

scholarly journals Preserving spatial perception in rooms using direct-sound driven dynamic range compression

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (6) ◽  
pp. 4556-4566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Gert Hassager ◽  
Tobias May ◽  
Alan Wiinberg ◽  
Torsten Dau
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Spatial Perception ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression

A Comparison of the Aided Performance and Benefit Provided by a Linear and a Two-Channel Wide Dynamic Range Compression Hearing Aid

1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Laurel Christensen ◽  
Tara Thomas ◽  
Fred H. Bess ◽  
Andrea Hedley-Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Volume Control ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Monosyllabic Words

The aided performance and benefit achieved with linear and two-channel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) in-the-canal (ITC) hearing aids were established in 55 individuals. Study participants had been wearing either linear or adaptive-frequency-response (Bass Increase at Low Levels, BILL) ITC hearing aids for approximately one year before participation in this study. Outcome measures included aided performance and objective benefit in quiet and noise at a variety of speech levels (50, 60, and 75 dB SPL), at various levels of babble background (quiet, signal-to-babble ratios of +5 and +10 dB), and for various types of test materials (monosyllabic words and sentences in connected speech). Several subjective measures of aided performance (sound-quality judgments and magnitude estimates of listening effort) and relative benefit (improvement in listening effort and the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI) were also obtained. Finally, self-report measures of hearing-aid use were also obtained using daily logs. Participants completed all outcome measures for the linear ITC hearing aids first, following 2 months of usage, and then repeated all outcome measures for the WDRC instruments after a subsequent 2-month period of use. In general, although both types of hearing aids demonstrated significant benefit, the results indicated that the WDRC instruments were superior to the linear devices for many of the outcome measures. This tended to be the case most frequently when low speech levels were used. Many of the performance differences between devices most likely can be ascribed to differences in gain, and prescriptive approaches (DSL[i/o] vs. NAL-R), for the fixed volume control testing performed in this study.

Loudness and Satisfaction Ratings for Hearing Aid Users

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (04) ◽  
pp. 272-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Blamey ◽  
Lois F.A. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Soft Or ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Comfortable Loudness

Background: Hearing aids amplify low-intensity sounds to make them audible while keeping high-intensity sounds at an acceptable loudness for listeners with impaired hearing. Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to assess loudness and satisfaction at the same time using a combined loudness and satisfaction questionnaire to rate 18 everyday environmental sounds. Research Design: Ten sets of data from four studies, covering three conditions, were analyzed. The three conditions were unaided, wide dynamic range compression (WDRC), and adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO®). In total, there were 61 subjects giving over 3,000 pairs of ratings for loudness and satisfaction. Results: The analysis found a strong relationship between loudness and satisfaction ratings for this set of listeners and conditions. The maximum satisfaction ratings corresponded to sounds with “comfortable” loudness ratings. Satisfaction was lowest for sounds that were “uncomfortably loud.” Sounds that were very soft or inaudible also received low satisfaction ratings unless the sounds were expected to be soft, such as the sound of one's own breathing. Conclusions: Hearing aid fittings that place most sounds at a comfortable level are likely to be more satisfactory than hearing aid fittings that produce more sounds close to hearing thresholds or discomfort levels. Aided conditions gave higher loudness and satisfaction ratings than the unaided condition, and the ADRO hearing aids gave significantly higher satisfaction ratings than the WDRC hearing aids.

Comparison of Linear Gain and Wide Dynamic Range Compression Hearing Aid Circuits II: Aided Loudness Measures

2000 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorienne M. Jenstad ◽  
John Pumford ◽  
Richard C. Seewald ◽  
Leonard E. Cornelisse
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document