Comparison of Performance with Wide Dynamic Range Compression and Linear Amplification

Abstract

This study compared subject performance and preference using a compression-limiting hearing aid set to linear amplification (program 1) and wide dynamic range compression (WDRC, program 2). The frequency responses of the hearing aid were matched to a 65 dB SPL signal and maximum output to a 90 dB SPL signal. Twenty subjects with moderate to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were tested. Speech recognition scores and speech reception thresholds were obtained both in quiet and in noise. Subjective preference for WDRC or linear amplification was measured via a paired-comparison procedure on "loudness appropriateness,” “clarity," and "pleasantness" to continuous discourse presented in quiet and in noise. Results suggested that WDRC yielded better speech intelligibility in quiet for low-level signals and no difference in speech intelligibility in noise compared to linear amplification. Subjects preferred WDRC for loudness to both high- and low-level signals and for pleasantness to high-level signals.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, AVC = automatic volume control, CL = compression limiting, CVR = consontant-vowel-ratio, HINT = Hearing In Noise Test, Ρ = program, REIG = real-ear insertion gain, REIR = real-ear insertion response, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio, SRS = speech recognition score, SRT = speech reception threshold, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Linear amplification - speech intelligibility - subjective preference - wide dynamic range compression

Publication History

Article published online:
03 May 2022

• REFERENCES

• American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specification for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6-1989). New York: ANSI.
• Bachler H, Vonlanthen A. (1994). PiCS comfort programs: signal processing tools to support your manner of communication. Phonak Focus 17: 2–25.
• Balfour PB, Hawkins DB. (1992). Acomparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. Ear Hear 13: 331–339.
• Boothroyd A, Springer N, Smith L, Schulman J. (1988). Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 31:362–376.
• Byrne D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to? J Am Acad Audiol 7: 377–395.
• Dillon HC. (1988). Compression in hearing aids. In: Sandlin RE, ed. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification: Vol. 1. Boston: College-Hill, 121–146.
• Dillon HC. (1996). Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear 17: 287–307.
• Dreschler WA. (1988a). Dynamic range reduction by peak clipping or compression and its effects on phoneme perception in hearing-impaired listeners. Scand Audiol 17: 45–51.
• Dreschler WA. (1988b). The effect of specific compression settings on phoneme identification in hearing-impaired subjects. Scand Audiol 17: 35–43.
• Dreschler WA, Eberhardt D, Melk PW. (1984). The use of single-channel compression for the improvement of speech intelligibility. Scand Audiol 13: 231–236.
• Fortune T. (1996). Amplifiers and circuit algorithms of contemporary hearing aids. In: Valente Μ, ed. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options and Limitations. New York· Thieme Medical, 157–209.
• Fromkin V, Rodman R. (1988). An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Gioannini K, Franzen R. (1978). Comparison of the effects of hearing aid harmonic distortion on performance scores for the MRHT and PB-50 test. J Audiol Res 18: 203–208.
• Hawkins DB, Naidoo SV. (1993). Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. J Am Acad Audiol 4: 221–237.
• Hickson LMH. (1994). Compression amplification in hearing aids. Am J Audiol 3: 51–65.
• Hickson L, Byrne D. (1995). Acoustic analysis of speech through a hearing aid: effects of linear vs compression amplification. Aust J Audiol 17(1): 1–13.
• Hickson L, Dodd B, Byrne D. (1995). Consonant perception with linear and compression amplification. Scand Audiol 24: 175–184.
• Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. (1995). The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 97: 1191–1195.
• Kuk FK. (1996). Theoretical and practical considerations in compression hearing aids. Trends in Amplification 1: 1–39.
• Ladefoged P. (1993). A Course in Phonetics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Lau CC, So KW. (1988). Material for Cantonese speech audiometry constructed by appropriate phonetic principles. Br J Audiol 22: 297–304.
• Lundberg G, Ovegard A, Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A, Brandstrom U. (1992). Perceived sound quality in a hearing aid with vented and closed earmould equalized in frequency response. Scand Audiol 21: 87–92.
• Moore BCJ. (1996). Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear 17: 133–160.
• Moore B, Glasberg Β, Stone Μ. (1991). Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 25: 171–182.
• Moore BCJ, Johnson JS, Clark TM, Pluvinage V. (1992). Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 13: 349–370.
• Nabelek TV. (1983). Performance of hearing-impaired listeners under various types of amplitude compression. J Acoust Soc Am 74: 776–791.
• Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. (1994). The effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am 96: 1471–1478.
• Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. (1994). Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95: 1085–1099.
• Peterson M, Feeney M, Yantis P. (1990). The effect of automatic gain control in hearing-impaired listeners with different dynamic ranges. Ear Hear 11: 185–194.
• Plomp R. (1988). The negative effect of amplitude compression in multi-channel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 83: 2322–2327.
• Preves DA. (1991). Output limiting and speech enhancement. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, Beck LB, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 35–51.
• Steinberg JC, Gardner MB. (1937). The dependency of hearing impairment on sound intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 9: 11–23.
• Teder H. (1990). Noise and speech levels in noisy environments. Hear Instr 41(4): 32–33.
• Tyler RS, Kuk FK. (1989). The effects of "noise suppression" hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise. Ear Hear 10: 243–249.
• Verschuure J, Dreschler WA, de Haan EH, van Cappellen M, Hammerschlag R, Mare MJ, Hijmans AC. (1993). Syllabic compression and speech intelligibility in hearing impaired listeners. Scand Audiol (Suppl 38): 92–100.
• Wong LLN, Au DKK, Tong MCF, van Hasselt A. (1996). Comparison of the performance of a programmable 2-channel full dynamic range compression hearing aid with 1-channel conventional instruments in Hong Kong. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Asian-Pacific Congress on Deafness. Manila: Plantila Press, 216–224.
• Wong LLN, Nilsson M, Soli SF. (in preparation). Development of Hearing In Noise Test—Chinese Version.
• Yund E, Buckles K. (1995). Discrimination of multi-channel-compressed speech in noise: long term learning in hearing impaired subjects. Ear Hear 16: 417–427.