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.

Variable recovery time circuit for use with wide dynamic range automatic gain control for hearing aid

1993 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 1217-1217
Author(s):  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Harry Teder ◽  
Arthur C. Johnson ◽  
Steven P. Hanke
Keyword(s):  
Recovery Time ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range

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 A 23-GHZ BANDWIDTH AUTOMATIC GAIN CONTROL AMPLIFIER WITH WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE FOR HIGH SPEED COMMUNICATION

2013 ◽  
Vol 142 ◽  
pp. 261-273
Author(s):  
Bo Zhang ◽  
Yong-Zhong Xiong ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
Sanming Hu ◽  
Joshua Le-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range

scholarly journals Effect of (Mis)Matched Compression Speed on Speech Recognition in Bimodal Listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652094897
Author(s):  
Dimitar Spirrov ◽  
Eugen Kludt ◽  
Eline Verschueren ◽  
Andreas Büchner ◽  
Tom Francart
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Testing Condition ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Automatic gain control (AGC) compresses the wide dynamic range of sounds to the narrow dynamic range of hearing-impaired listeners. Setting AGC parameters (time constants and knee points) is an important part of the fitting of hearing devices. These parameters do not only influence overall loudness elicited by the hearing devices but can also affect the recognition of speech in noise. We investigated whether matching knee points and time constants of the AGC between the cochlear implant and the hearing aid of bimodal listeners would improve speech recognition in noise. We recruited 18 bimodal listeners and provided them all with the same cochlear-implant processor and hearing aid. We compared the matched AGCs with the default device settings with mismatched AGCs. As a baseline, we also included a condition with the mismatched AGCs of the participants’ own devices. We tested speech recognition in quiet and in noise presented from different directions. The time constants affected outcomes in the monaural testing condition with the cochlear implant alone. There were no specific binaural performance differences between the two AGC settings. Therefore, the performance was mostly dependent on the monaural cochlear implant alone condition.

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