Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(09): 810-822
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16157
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique

Benjamin J. Kirby
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Illinois State University, Normal, IL
,
Judy G. Kopun
†   Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Meredith Spratford
†   Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Clairissa M. Mollak
‡   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
,
Marc A. Brennan
†   Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Ryan W. McCreery
†   Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Sloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds.

Purpose:

This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children.

Research Design:

Participants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm.

Study Sample:

Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users.

Data Collection and Analyses:

Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.

Results:

Overall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.

Conclusions:

These results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.

Key Words

adults - children - frequency lowering - hearing aids - hearing loss - plural recognition

This work was supported in part by the Oticon corporation, Denmark. Additional funding by NIH/NIDCD R01DC013591, and P30DC004662.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alexander JM. (2013) Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. In: Seminars in Hearing. vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 86–109. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme Medical Publishers.
  • Alexander JM. 2016; Nonlinear frequency compression: Influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 139 (02) 938-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; Effects of frequency compression and frequency transposition on fricative and affricate perception in listeners with normal hearing and mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (05) 519-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Angelo K, Alexander JM, Christiansen TU, Simonsen CS, Jespersgaard CF. 2015 Oticon Frequency Lowering. [White Paper]. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/∼alexan14/Publications_files/SpeechRescue.pdf . Accessed September 13, 2016
    PubMed
  • Auriemmo J, Kuk F, Lau C, Marshall S, Thiele N, Pikora M, Quick D, Stenger P. 2009; Effect of linear frequency transposition on speech recognition and production of school-age children. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (05) 289-305
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Barrouillet P, Camos V. 2007; The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory 455: 59-80
    Google Scholar
  • Boersma P, Weenink D. 2011 Praat version 5.2.21. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/download_win.html . Accessed June 24, 2017
    PubMed
  • Bohnert A, Nyffeler M, Keilmann A. 2010; Advantages of a non-linear frequency compression algorithm in noise. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267 (07) 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brainard DH. 1997; The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10 (04) 433-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brennan MA, McCreery R, Kopun J, Hoover B, Alexander J, Lewis D, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; Paired comparisons of nonlinear frequency compression, extended bandwidth, and restricted bandwidth hearing aid processing for children and adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (10) 983-998
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Casey BJ, Trainor RJ, Orendi JL, Schubert AB, Nystrom LE, Giedd JN, Castellanos FX, Haxby JV, Noll DC, Cohen JD, Forman SD, Dahl RE, Rapoport JL. 1997; A developmental functional MRI study of prefrontal activation during performance of a go-no-go task. J Cogn Neurosci 9 (06) 835-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. 1998; Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (02) 1128-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Durston S, Thomas KM, Yang Y, Uluğ AM, Zimmerman RD, Casey BJ. 2002; A neural basis for the development of inhibitory control. Dev Sci 5 (04) F9-F16
    Google Scholar
  • Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. 2013; Does cognitive function predict frequency compressed speech recognition in listeners with normal hearing and normal cognition?. Int J Audiol 52 (01) 14-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. 2009; Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 48 (09) 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glista D, Scollie S, Sulkers J. 2012; Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing aid fitting in older children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (06) 1765-1787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hogan CA, Turner CW. 1998; High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104 (01) 432-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ. 2014; Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol 53 (04) 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hornsby BW. 2013; The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear Hear 34 (05) 523-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kirby BJ, Brown CJ. 2015; Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on ACC amplitude and listener performance. Ear Hear 36 (05) e261-e270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F, Keenan D, Korhonen P, Lau CC. 2009; Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (08) 465-479
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D. 2007; What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? ECVP Abstract Supplement. Perception 36: 1-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Margolis RH, Saly GL. 2008; Distribution of hearing loss characteristics in a clinical population. Ear Hear 29 (04) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • MathWorks 2014. Matlab R2014a. Natick, Massachusetts:
    Google Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Alexander J, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; The influence of audibility on speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (04) 440-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2013; Maximizing audibility and speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression by estimating audible bandwidth. Ear Hear 34 (02) e24-e27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miller CW, Bates E, Brennan M. 2016; The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 55 (05) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mussoi BS, Bentler RA. 2015; Impact of frequency compression on music perception. Int J Audiol 54 (09) 627-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Parsa V, Scollie S, Glista D, Seelisch A. 2013; Nonlinear frequency compression: effects on sound quality ratings of speech and music. Trends Amplif 17 (01) 54-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pelli DG. 1997; The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10 (04) 437-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Perreau AE, Bentler RA, Tyler RS. 2013; The contribution of a frequency-compression hearing aid to contralateral cochlear implant performance. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (02) 105-120
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picou EM, Marcrum SC, Ricketts TA. 2015; Evaluation of the effects of nonlinear frequency compression on speech recognition and sound quality for adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 54 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. (2016). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-128. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme . Accessed June 10, 2016.
  • Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG. 2003; Hearing loss in children and adults: audiometric configuration, asymmetry, and progression. Ear Hear 24 (03) 198-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • R Core Team 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing;
    Google Scholar
  • Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. 2009; Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (05) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. 2005; The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. 2005; Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 44 (05) 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. 2006; Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 45 (11) 619-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NB, Gehani N. 2013; Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (05) 1349-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Smith J, Dann M, Brown PM. 2009; An evaluation of frequency transposition for hearing‐impaired school‐age children. Deafness Educ Int 11 (02) 62-82
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Spratford M, Hodson McLean H, McCreery RW. 2017; (Accepted) Relationship of grammatical context on children’s recognition of s/z-inflected words. J Am Acad Adiol 28 (09) 799-809
    Google Scholar
  • Storkel HL, Hoover JR. 2010; An online calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on the basis of child corpora of spoken American English. Behav Res Methods 42 (02) 497-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN. 1995; Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97 (04) 2568-2576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Venables WN, Ripley BD. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer; doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
    Google Scholar
  • Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T. 2010; Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression for school-age children with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (10) 618-628
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T, Hudson M. 2011; Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 50 (06) 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar