Aided Loudness Growth and Satisfaction with Everyday Loudness Perception in Compression Hearing Aid Users

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 206-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Jozef J. Zwislocki

The primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship between listeners' loudness growth and their satisfaction with loudness when wearing wide-dynamic-range compression (WDRC) hearing aids. An absolute-magnitude-estimate procedure was used to obtain listeners' unaided and aided loudness growth functions in response to a 500 and 2000 Hz warble tone. In general, listeners' unaided loudness growth functions were steeper than the average normal-hearing listeners' functions for both frequencies, and their aided loudness growth functions were shallower than their unaided functions. Loudness growth functions tended to be undercompressed for 500 Hz but overcompressed for 2000 Hz. The Profile of Aided Loudness (PAL) questionnaire was administered to determine listeners' loudness satisfaction in everyday listening situations. Most listeners were satisfied with their perception of soft, average, and loud environmental sounds, regardless of how well or not well their WDRC aids normalized their aided loudness growth. La meta primaria de este estudio fue examinar la relación entre el crecimiento de la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad) en el oyente y su satisfacción con dicha sonoridad ante el uso de auxiliares auditivos con compresión de rango dinámico amplio (WDRC). Se utilizó un procedimiento de estimación absoluta de la magnitud para obtener en los sujetos las funciones de crecimiento de la sonoridad, con amplificación y sin ella, en respuesta a tonos modulados de 500 y 2000 Hz. En general, las funciones de crecimiento en la sonoridad sin amplificación mostraron una pendiente más pronunciada que dichas funciones para normo-oyentes, en ambas frecuencias, y en las mismas funciones con amplificación, las pendientes fueron menos profundas, que en aquellas sin amplificación. Las funciones de sonoridad tendieron a estar sub-comprimidas en 500 Hz pero sobre-comprimidas en 2000Hz. Se administró el cuestionario del Perfil de Sonoridad con Amplificación (PAL) para determinar la satisfacción del oyente a este incremento subjetivo de la intensidad en situaciones auditivas cotidianas. La mayor parte de los sujetos estuvieron satisfechos con su percepción de sonidos ambientales suaves, promedio y fuertes, independientemente de cuán bien sus auxiliares auditivos con WDRC normalizaran este crecimiento en la sonoridad.

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1009-1017 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongWook Kim ◽  
KiWoong Seong ◽  
MyoungNam Kim ◽  
JinHo Cho ◽  
JyungHyun Lee

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Kates

This article provides an overview of dynamic-range compression in digital hearing aids. Digital technology is becoming increasingly common in hearing aids, particularly because of the processing flexibility it offers and the opportunity to create more-effective devices. The focus of the paper is on the algorithms used to build digital compression systems. Of the various approaches that can be used to design a digital hearing aid, this paper considers broadband compression, multi-channel filter banks, a frequency-domain compressor using the FFT, the side-branch design that separates the filtering operation from the frequency analysis, and the frequency-warped version of the side-branch approach that modifies the analysis frequency spacing to more closely match auditory perception. Examples of the compressor frequency resolution, group delay, and compression behavior are provided for the different design approaches.


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Lindley ◽  
Catherine V. Palmer

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1543-1554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul N. Reinhart ◽  
Pamela E. Souza

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of varying wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) release time on intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech. The study also considered the role of individual working memory. Method Thirty older listeners with mild to moderately-severe sloping sensorineural hearing loss participated. Individuals were divided into high and low working memory groups on the basis of the results of a reading span test. Participants listened binaurally to sentence stimuli simulated at a range of reverberation conditions and WDRC release times using a high compression ratio. Outcome measures included objective intelligibility and subjective clarity ratings. Results Speech intelligibility and clarity ratings both decreased as a function of reverberation. The low working memory group demonstrated a greater decrease in intelligibility with increasing amounts of reverberation than the high working memory group. Both groups, regardless of working memory, had higher speech intelligibility and clarity ratings with longer WDRC release times. WDRC release time had a larger effect on speech intelligibility under more reverberant conditions. Conclusions Reverberation significantly affects speech intelligibility, particularly for individuals with lower working memory. In addition, longer release times in hearing aids may improve listener speech intelligibility and clarity in reverberant environments.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Plyler ◽  
Mark Hedrick ◽  
Brittany Rinehart ◽  
Rebekah Tripp

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document