Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2257-2985
Research Article

The Influence of the Stimulus Level Used to Prescribe Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Perception

Marc A. Brennan
1   Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
,
Daniel M. Rasetshwane
2   Hearing and Speech Perception Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
,
Judy G. Kopun
2   Hearing and Speech Perception Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
,
Ryan W. McCreery
2   Hearing and Speech Perception Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH-NIDCD) grants R03 DC013982, P20 GM109023, and P30 DC4662.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) is a signal processing technique designed to lower high-frequency inaudible sounds for a listener to a lower frequency that is audible. Because the maximum frequency that is audible to a listener with hearing loss will vary with the input speech level, the input level used to set NFC could impact speech recognition.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of the input level used to set NFC on nonsense syllable recognition.

Research Design Nonsense syllable recognition was measured for three NFC fitting conditions—with NFC set based on speech input levels of 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL, respectively, as well as without NFC (restricted bandwidth condition).

Study Sample Twenty-three adults (ages 42–80 years old) with hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected, monaurally, using a hearing aid simulator. The start frequency and frequency compression ratios were set based on the SoundRecover Fitting Assistant. Speech stimuli were 657 consonant–vowel–consonant nonwords presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL and mixed with steady noise (6 dB signal-to-noise ratio) and scored based on entire word, initial consonant, vowel, and final consonant. Linear mixed effects examined the effects of NFC fitting condition, presentation level, and scoring method on percent correct recognition. Additional predictor variables of start frequency and frequency–compression ratio were examined.

Results Nonsense syllable recognition increased as presentation level increased. Nonsense syllable recognition for all presentation levels was highest when NFC was set based on the 70 dB SPL input level and decreased significantly when set based on the 60 and 50 dB SPL inputs. Relative to consonant recognition, there was a greater reduction in vowel recognition. Nonsense syllable recognition between NFC fitting conditions improved with increases in the start frequency, where higher start frequencies led to better nonsense word recognition.

Conclusion Nonsense syllable recognition was highest when setting NFC based on a 70 dB SPL presentation level and suggest that a high presentation level should be used to determine NFC parameters for an individual patient.

Keywords

hearing aids - hearing loss - deafness - speech perception

Previous Presentation

A portion of this work was presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference, Lake Tahoe, 2016.




Publication History

Received: 21 March 2023

Accepted: 28 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 January 2024

Article published online:
12 December 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Plyler PN, Fleck EL. The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006; 49 (03) 616-627
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kimlinger C, McCreery R, Lewis D. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 128-137
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Van Eeckhoutte M, Folkeard P, Glista D, Scollie S. Speech recognition, loudness, and preference with extended bandwidth hearing aids for adult hearing aid users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (10) 780-791
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (11) 619-629
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (09) 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bentler R, Walker E, McCreery R, Arenas RM, Roush P. Nonlinear frequency compression in hearing aids: impact on speech and language development. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) e143-e152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NBH, Gehani N. Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56: 1349-1363
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Pavlovic CV. Speech spectrum considerations and speech intelligibility predictions in hearing aid evaluations. J Speech Hear Disord 1989; 54 (01) 3-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Margolis RH, Saly GL. Distribution of hearing loss characteristics in a clinical population. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (04) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Brennan MA, McCreery R, Kopun J. et al. 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 2014; 25 (10) 983-998
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moore BCJ, Stone MA, Füllgrabe C, Glasberg BR, Puria S. Spectro-temporal characteristics of speech at high frequencies, and the potential for restoration of audibility to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (06) 907-922
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Alexander JM. 20Q: frequency lowering ten years later - New Technology Innovations 2016;18040. Accessed March 7, 2023 at: www.audiologyonline.com
  • 13 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 2013; 34 (02) e24-e27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 McCreery RW, Alexander J, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. The influence of audibility on speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (04) 440-447
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ. 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 2014; 53 (04) 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Kokx-Ryan M, Cohen J, Cord MT. et al. Benefits of nonlinear frequency compression in adult hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (10) 838-855
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Picou EM, Marcrum SC, Ricketts TA. 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 2015; 54 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. Benefit from, and acclimatization to, frequency compression hearing aids in experienced adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (01) 37-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ellis RJ, Munro KJ. Predictors of aided speech recognition, with and without frequency compression, in older adults. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (07) 467-475
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Alexander JM. Nonlinear frequency compression: influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 139 (02) 938-957
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Scollie S, Glista D, Seto J. et al. Fitting frequency-lowering signal processing applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: updates and protocols. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 219-236
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Alexander JM, Rallapalli V. Acoustic and perceptual effects of amplitude and frequency compression on high-frequency speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (02) 908-923
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Brennan MA, Lewis D, McCreery R, Kopun J, Alexander JM. Listening effort and speech recognition with frequency compression amplification for children and adults with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (09) 823-837
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Shehorn J, Marrone N, Muller T. Speech perception in noise and listening effort of older adults with nonlinear frequency compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 215-225
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Plyler PN, Tardy B, Hedrick M. The effects of nonlinear frequency compression and digital noise reduction on word recognition and satisfaction ratings in noise in adult hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (02) 103-114
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Salorio-Corbetto M, Baer T, Moore BCJ. Comparison of frequency transposition and frequency compression for people with extensive dead regions in the cochlea. Trends Hear 2019; 23: 2331216518822206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Chen X, You Y, Yang J. et al. Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on Mandarin speech and sound-quality perception in hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (07) 524-533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ahn J, Choi JE, Kang JY. et al. The influence of non-linear frequency compression on the perception of speech and music in patients with high frequency hearing loss. J Audiol Otol 2021; 25 (02) 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kara E, Şenkal ÖA, Kılıç M, Kara HÇ, Çapar SH, Yener HM. The effects of different frequency lowering technologies' performances on speech in noise test. B-ENT 2022; 18 (04) 239-247
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Simpson A, Bond A, Loeliger M, Clarke S. Speech intelligibility benefits of frequency-lowering algorithms in adult hearing aid users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (04) 249-261
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Miller CW, Bates E, Brennan M. The effects of frequency lowering on speech perception in noise with adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (05) 305-312
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Kirby BJ, Brown CJ. Effects of nonlinear frequency compression on ACC amplitude and listener performance. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (05) e261-e270
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for Audiological Screening. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (06) 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (05) 281-292
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K. et al. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 96 (04) 2108-2120
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Carney E, Schlauch RS. Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (05) 1203-1209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Wolfe J, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M, Boretzki M, Caraway T, Hudson M. Long-term effects of non-linear frequency compression for children with moderate hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (06) 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar