Ear and Hearing · 2009 · 51 citations · 62 references
Health ProfessionsAudiologySpeech-language PathologyHearing AidsHearing SciencePsychoacousticsAuditory DiscriminationConsonant ClassificationHearing ImpairmentHearing LossSpeech Perception OutcomesSpeech Recognition TestingAuditory Performance With AmplificationConsonant PerceptionHearing Loss Effects On Speech RecognitionMultichannel CompressionNonsense SyllablesSensorineural Hearing Loss EffectsSensorineural Hearing Loss FittingWide Dynamic Range Compression
In Brief Objective: This study examined the effects of multichannel wide-dynamic range compression (WDRC) amplification and stimulus audibility on consonant recognition and error patterns. Design: Listeners had either severe or mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Each listener was monaurally fit with a wearable hearing aid using typical clinical procedures, frequency-gain parameters, and a hybrid of clinically prescribed compression ratios for desired sensation level (Scollie et al., 2005) and NAL-NL (Dillon, 1999). Consonant-vowel nonsense syllables were presented in soundfield at multiple input levels (50, 65, 80 dB SPL). Test conditions were four-channel fast-acting WDRC amplification and a control compression limiting (CL) amplification condition. Listeners identified the stimulus heard from choices presented on an on-screen display. A between-subject repeated measures design was used to evaluate consonant recognition and consonant confusion patterns. Results: Fast-acting WDRC provided a considerable audibility advantage at 50 dB SPL, especially for listeners with severe hearing loss. Listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss received less audibility improvement from the fast-acting WDRC amplification, for conversational and high level speech, when compared with listeners with severe hearing loss. Analysis of WDRC benefit scores revealed that listeners had slightly lower scores with fast-acting WDRC amplification (relative to CL) when WDRC provided minimal improvement in audibility. The negative effect was greater for listeners with mild to moderate hearing loss compared with their counterparts with severe hearing loss. Conclusions: All listeners, but particularly the severe loss group, benefited from fast-acting WDRC amplification for low-level speech. For conversational and higher speech levels (i.e., when WDRC does not confer a significant audibility advantage), fast-acting WDRC amplification seems to slightly degrade performance. Listeners’ consonant confusion patterns suggest that this negative effect may be partly due to fast-acting WDRC-induced distortions, which alter specific consonant features. In support of this view, audibility accounted for a greater percentage of the variance in listeners’ performance with CL amplification compared with fast-acting WDRC amplification. This study evaluated consonant recognition and consonant confusion patterns for listeners with mild to moderate and severe hearing loss. Listeners were fit with behind the ear hearing instruments that were programmed for fast-acting wide dynamic range compression and compression limiting processing. Subjects responded to block randomized presentations /Ci/ nonsense syllable tokens presented in sound field at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL. Results revealed wide dynamic range compression benefit for low-level speech, especially for listeners with severe hearing loss.
62
Mead C. Killion, Patricia A. Niquette, Gail I. Gudmundsen et al. · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004 · 855 citations
Health Professions, Audiology, Speech-language Pathology +17