Predictability of the Required Frequency Response Characteristic of a Hearing Aid from the Pure-Tone-Audiogram

Byrne, Denis; Murray, Narelle

doi:10.1097/00003446-198604000-00002

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other gain rules (Humes, 1986) might have produced better results. However, the hearing aid literature has often indicated that a 6 dB/octave emphasis can be a simple and effective setting for hearing aid gain (most recently, Byrne & Murray, 1986). Unfortunately, we did not use the 6 dB emphasis condition in the word recognition task, so we cannot compare intelligiblity scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing the Telephone Speech Signal for the Hearing Impaired

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech intelligibility scores from 16 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss were evaluated using a digitized version of the California Consonant Test that was presented via headphones through a 300 to 3000 Hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone band. Each subject was tested with an unprocessed signal that was frequency-equalized to compensate for the individual's hearing loss, and a signal that was equalized and compressed by the use of a compressor compression technique. Subjects were tested at three sound pressure levels above a pure-tone average threshold for frequencies 1 and 2 kHz. Two digital signal processing techniques designed to compensate for high-frequency hearing loss were examined: frequency domain processing and time domain processing. Frequency domain involved modification of the short-term spectrum obtained through a fast Fourier transform, whereas time domain processing involved passing the signal through a bank of finite impulse response filters. Both techniques showed significant intelligibility improvements (15-3070). In a second experiment, 16 additional subjects with high-frequency hearing loss compared an amplified telephone signal to three processed signals: (1) 6 dB per octave emphasis; (2) a signal frequency equalized for their hearing loss; and (3) a signal that was equalized for their hearing loss and was compressed according to their uncomfortable loudness levels. Most subjects preferred the signal with the 6 dB per octave emphasis. (Ear Hear 13 2:70-79)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing the Telephone Speech Signal for the Hearing Impaired

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…aids was demonstrated more than 2 decades ago (e.g., Killion & Tillman, 1982). Although transducer limitations do exist, speech recognition data, particularly for those listeners with high-frequency hearing thresholds in excess of 55 dB HL and those with high-frequency "dead regions," have been used to support bandwidth limitations (Amos & Humes, 2001;Baer, Moore, & Kluk, 2002;Ching, Dillon, Katsch, & Byrne, 1998;Hogan & Turner, 1998;Byrne & Murray, 1986;Turner & Cummings, 1999;Villchur, 1973). In summary, these studies suggest that for some listeners, little or no additional speech recognition or sound quality benefit is found when increasing the high-frequency cutoff frequency beyond 3-4 kHz.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

High-Frequency Amplification and Sound Quality in Listeners With Normal Through Moderate Hearing Loss

Ricketts

Dittberner²,

Johnson

2008

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the low frequency range, DSL[i/o] targets defined the maximum of the optimal range, and for the high frequency range, the maximum of the optimal range was consistently 3 dB below DSL[i/o] targets. Thus, as Byrne and Murray (1986) found, it is feasible to use a threshold-based procedure to generate targets for the hearing instrument fitting. In this case, the DSL[i/o] method, with some modifications, could be used to generate appropriate hearing instrument fitting targets for adult listeners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Some studies indicate that it is possible to predict the optimal frequency response (or range of frequency responses) from the listener's thresholds. If so, it is feasible to use a prescriptive method to set the frequency response of a hearing instrument, as found, for example, by Byrne and Murray (1986) and Skinner (1993).…”

Section: Hearing Instrument Outcomes Are Multidimensionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A range of aided ear canal frequency responses was determined within which adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss performed optimally on both objective and subjective outcomes. Clinical implications of this finding include the following: prescriptive methods providing different targets may all result in optimal fittings; and a range of targets may be more appropriate than a single target when setting the frequency-gain characteristics of the hearing instrument.

show abstract

Predictability of the Required Frequency Response Characteristic of a Hearing Aid from the Pure-Tone-Audiogram

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Processing the Telephone Speech Signal for the Hearing Impaired

Processing the Telephone Speech Signal for the Hearing Impaired

High-Frequency Amplification and Sound Quality in Listeners With Normal Through Moderate Hearing Loss

Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About