Download PDF
Semin Hear 2013; 34(02): 086-109
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1341346
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Individual Variability in Recognition of Frequency-Lowered Speech

Joshua M. Alexander
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 April 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Individual Variability in Recognition of Frequency-Lowered SpeechSemin Hear 2013; 34(03): 253-254
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348021

Abstract

Frequency lowering in hearing aids is not a new concept, but modern advances in technology have allowed it to be performed more efficiently and on select portions of the spectrum. Nonlinear frequency compression reduces the frequency spacing in a band of high-frequency energy so that more information is carried in the audible bandwidth. Frequency transposition and translation techniques lower only the part of the high-frequency spectrum that likely contains important speech information. These advances may help overcome the limited bandwidth in conventional hearing aids, which restrict access to high-frequency information even for those with mild to moderate hearing loss. This is especially important for young children learning speech and language. A framework is advanced in which factors that influence individual differences in speech recognition can be divided into extrinsic factors that affect the representation of the frequency-lowered speech at the auditory periphery, including the specific technique and the settings chosen for it, and intrinsic factors that contribute to an individual's ability to learn and benefit from this signal. Finally, the importance of electroacoustically verifying the output to avoid too little or too much lowering and the importance of validating effectiveness of outcomes in individual users of the technology are emphasized.

Keywords

Hearing aids - frequency lowering - frequency compression - frequency transposition
 

  • References

  • 1 Hogan CA, Turner CW. High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 432-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103: 1128-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Turner CW, Cummings KJ. Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. Am J Audiol 1999; 8: 47-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baer T, Moore BCJ, Kluk K. Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (3 Pt 1) 1133-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vickers DA, Moore BCJ, Baer T. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1164-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boothroyd A, Medwetsky L. Spectral distribution of /s/ and the frequency response of hearing aids. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 150-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 2183-2190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fox RA, Nissen SL. Sex-related acoustic changes in voiceless English fricatives. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 753-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mann VA, Repp BH. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the /š/-/s/ distinction: spectral factors. Percept Psychophys 1980; 28: 213-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Whalen DH. Effects of vocalic formant transitions and vowel quality on the English [s]-[ŝ] boundary. J Acoust Soc Am 1981; 69: 275-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Heinz JM, Stevens KN. On the properties of voiceless fricative consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1961; 33: 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nittrouer S, Studdert-Kennedy M. The role of coarticulatory effects in the perception of fricatives by children and adults. J Speech Hear Res 1987; 30: 319-329
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zeng FG, Turner CW. Recognition of voiceless fricatives by normal and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 440-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nittrouer S. Age-related differences in perceptual effects of formant transitions within syllables and across syllable boundaries. J Phonetics 1992; 20: 351-382
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nittrouer S, Miller ME. Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101: 2253-2266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nittrouer S, Miller ME. Developmental weighting shifts for noise components of fricative-vowel syllables. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 572-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hedrick MS. Effect of acoustic cues on labeling fricatives and affricates. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40: 925-938
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43: 1389-1401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE, Choi S, Hoover B. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on auditory skills in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 483-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pittman AL. Short-term word-learning rate in children with normal hearing and children with hearing loss in limited and extended high-frequency bandwidths. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51: 785-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hornsby BWY, Johnson EE, Picou E. Effects of degree and configuration of hearing loss on the contribution of high- and low-frequency speech information to bilateral speech understanding. Ear Hear 2011; 32: 543-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stelmachowicz PG, Pittman AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 316-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moeller MP, Hoover BM, Putman CA , et al. Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing: Part I—phonetic development. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 605-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Moeller MP, McCleary E, Putman C, Tyler-Krings A, Hoover B, Stelmachowicz P. Longitudinal development of phonology and morphology in children with late-identified mild-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 625-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wolfe J, John A, Schafer EC , et al. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rudmin F. The why and how of hearing /s/. Volta Review 1983; 85: 263-269
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Elfenbein JL, Hardin-Jones MA, Davis JM. Oral communication skills of children who are hard of hearing. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37: 216-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Simpson A. Frequency-lowering devices for managing high-frequency hearing loss: a review. Trends Amplif 2009; 13: 87-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kuk F, Keenan D, Korhonen P, Lau CC. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20: 465-479
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Serman M, Hanneman R, Kornagel U. White paper: Micon frequency compression. Siemens AG, 2012. Available at: http://hearing/siemens.com/Resources/literatures/Global/publications/2012%20-%20white-paper%20mocon%20frequcny%20compression.pdf?_blob=publicationfile . Accessed on March 19, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Braida LD, Durlach NI, Lippmann RP, Hicks BL, Rabinowitz WM, Reed CM. Hearing aids—a review of past research on linear amplification, amplitude compression, and frequency lowering. ASHA Monogr 1979; 19: 1-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Parent TC, Chmiel R, Jerger J. Comparison of performance with frequency transposition hearing aids and conventional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9: 67-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 McDermott HJ, Dorkos VP, Dean MR, Ching TYC. Improvements in speech perception with use of the AVR TranSonic frequency-transposing hearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 1323-1335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 2006; 45: 619-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Turner CW, Robb MP. Audibility and recognition of stop consonants in normal and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 1566-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Ellison DE. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. I: The contribution of selected frequency regions. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85: 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Horwitz AR, Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB. Recognition of low-pass-filtered consonants in noise with normal and impaired high-frequency hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111 (1 Pt 1) 409-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kuk F, Korhonen P, Peeters H, Keenan D, Jessen A, Andersen H. Linear frequency transposition: extending the audibility of high frequency information. Hearing Review 2006; 13: 42-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 2009; 48: 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Auriemmo J, Kuk F, Lau C , et al. Effect of linear frequency transposition on speech recognition and production of school-age children. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20: 289-305
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Alexander JM, Lewis DE, Kopun JG, McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG . Effects of frequency lowering in wearable devices on fricative and affricate peroeption, 2008 International Hearing Aid Conference, August 13–16, 2008; Lake Tahoe, CA
    PubMed
  • 43 Kuk F, Jessen A, Baekgaard L. Ensuring high-fidelity in hearing aid sound processing. Hearing Review 2009; 16: 34-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 ANSI. ANSI S3.5–1997 (R2007), Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute;
    Google Scholar
  • 45 McCreery RW, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. Maximizing audibility and speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression by estimating audible bandwidth. Ear Hear 2012; 20: 1-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Alexander JM. Nonlinear frequency compression: balancing start frequency and compression ratio. Paper presented at: 39th Annual meeting of the American Auditory Society; March 8–10, 2012 ; Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bohnert A, Nyffeler M, Keilmann A. Advantages of a non-linear frequency compression algorithm in noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267: 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Brennan M, McCreery R, Kopun J, Hoover B, Stelmachowicz PG . Signal processing preference for music and speech in adults and children with hearing loss, 39th Annual meeting of the American Auditory Society, March 8–10, 2012; Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMed
  • 49 Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (5 Pt 1) 3099-3111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kuk F, Peeters H, Keenan D, Lau C. Use of frequency transposition on in thin-tube, open-ear fittings. Hearing Journal 2007; 60: 59-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Glista D, Scollie S, Sulkers J. Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing aid fitting in older children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55: 1765-1787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Nyffeler M. Study finds that non-linear frequency compression boosts speech intelligibility. Hearing Journal 2008; 61: 22-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Nittrouer S, Boothroyd A. Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87: 2705-2715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Gravel JS, Fausel N, Liskow C, Chobot J. Children's speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dual-microphone hearing aid technology. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Fallon M, Trehub SE, Schneider BA. Children's use of semantic cues in degraded listening environments. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111 (5 Pt 1) 2242-2249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hall III JW, Grose JH, Buss E, Dev MB. Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Bonino AY, Leibold LJ, Buss E. Release from perceptual masking for children and adults: benefit of a carrier phrase. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 3-14
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Stelmachowicz PG, Hoover BM, Lewis DE, Kortekaas RWL, Pittman AL. The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43: 902-914
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Scollie SD. Children's speech recognition scores: the Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 543-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Nishi K, Lewis DE, Hoover BM, Choi S, Stelmachowicz PG. Children's recognition of American English consonants in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127: 3177-3188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130: 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Hnath-Chisolm TE, Laipply E, Boothroyd A. Age-related changes on a children's test of sensory-level speech perception capacity. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41: 94-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Edwards J, Beckman ME, Munson B. The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47: 421-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Kortekaas RWL, Stelmachowicz PG. Bandwidth effects on children's perception of the inflectional morpheme /s/: acoustical measurements, auditory detection, and clarity rating. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43: 645-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L , et al. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9: 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. Hearing loss in children and adults: audiometric configuration, asymmetry, and progression. Ear Hear 2003; 24: 198-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Jerger S, Lai L, Marchman VA. Picture naming by children with hearing loss: I. Effect of semantically related auditory distractors. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13: 463-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Eisenberg LS. Current state of knowledge: speech recognition and production in children with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 766-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 92: 1258-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Gatehouse S. Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 296-306
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 808-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Turner CW, Humes LE, Bentler RA, Cox RM. A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (3, Suppl) 14S-25S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. Benefit acclimatization in elderly hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 428-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Horwitz AR, Turner CW. The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 129-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 820-831
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Wolfe J, John A, Schafer EC, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21: 618-628
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Kuk F, Keenan D. Frequency transposition: training is only half the story. Hearing Review 2010; 17: 38-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Lunner T, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50: 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings—1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol 2006; 45: 130-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 604-617
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Cox RM, Xu J. Short and long compression release times: speech understanding, real-world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21: 121-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Foo C, Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 618-631
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Masterson KM, Alexander JM. Factors influencing release from masking with fast vs. slow compression. 38th Annual meeting of the American Auditory Society, March 10–12, 2011; Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52: 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Pittman A. Children's performance in complex listening conditions: effects of hearing loss and digital noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54: 1224-1239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Pittman A. Age-related benefits of digital noise reduction for short-term word learning in children with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54: 1448-1463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Humes LE. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (3 Pt 1) 1112-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Humes LE. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18: 590-603
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Humes LE, Floyd SS. Measures of working memory, sequence learning, and speech recognition in the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48: 224-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Schneider BA. How age affects auditory-cognitive interactions in speech comprehension. Audiol Res 2011; 1 (e10) 34-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Gosselin PA, Gagné J-P. Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing audiovisual speech in noise. Int J Audiol 2011; 50: 786-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss: Susceptibility to Hearing Aid Distortion. Ear Hear 2013; (Jan) 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition?. Int J Audiol 2013; 52: 14-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Smith J, Dann M, Brown M. An evaluation of frequency transposition for hearing-impaired school-age children. Deafness Educ Int 2009; 11: 62-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Kopun J, McCreery R, Hoover B, Spalding J, Brennan M, Stelmachowicz P . Effects of Exposure on Speech Recognition with Nonlinear Frequency Compression, 39th Annual meeting of the American Auditory Society, March 8–10, 2012; Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMed