The Effects of Expansion on the Objective and Subjective Performance of Hearing Instrument Users

Plyler, Patrick N.; Hill, Ashley Blair; Trine, Timothy D.

doi:10.3766/jaaa.16.2.5

Cited by 16 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, reduced noise levels appear to have outweighed any reduction in the audibility of desired soft sounds due to expansion. The SCNS and MCNS algorithms described in this paper used similar ETs to the algorithms evaluated by Plyler et al ͑2005;2006͒ and thus may result in a similar audibility trade-off.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The acoustic and perceptual effects of two noise-suppression algorithms

Zakis¹,

Wise²

2007

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internal noise generated by hearing-aid circuits can be audible and objectionable to aid users, and may lead to the rejection of hearing aids. Two expansion algorithms were developed to suppress internal noise below a threshold level. The multiple-channel algorithm's expansion thresholds followed the 55-dB SPL long-term average speech spectrum, while the single-channel algorithm suppressed sounds below 45 dBA. With the recommended settings in static conditions, the single-channel algorithm provided lower noise levels, which were perceived as quieter by most normal-hearing participants. However, in dynamic conditions "pumping" noises were more noticeable with the single-channel algorithm. For impaired-hearing listeners fitted with the ADRO amplification strategy, both algorithms maintained speech understanding for words in sentences presented at 55 dB SPL in quiet (99.3% correct). Mean sentence reception thresholds in quiet were 39.4, 40.7, and 41.8 dB SPL without noise suppression, and with the single- and multiple-channel algorithms, respectively. The increase in the sentence reception threshold was statistically significant for the multiple-channel algorithm, but not the single-channel algorithm. Thus, both algorithms suppressed noise without affecting the intelligibility of speech presented at 55 dB SPL, with the single-channel algorithm providing marginally greater noise suppression in static conditions, and the multiple-channel algorithm avoiding pumping noises.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The acoustic and perceptual effects of two noise-suppression algorithms

Zakis¹,

Wise²

2007

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Findings suggest that sound quality may be related to speech recognition, but involves separate processes. While some listeners rate conditions with the highest speech intelligibility as also having the best sound quality (van Buuren et al, 1999), this does not seem to be the norm (Harford & Fox, 1978; Plyler et al, 2005; Rosengard et al, 2005). …”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Paired Comparisons of Nonlinear Frequency Compression, Extended Bandwidth, and Restricted Bandwidth Hearing Aid Processing for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss

Brennan¹,

McCreery²,

Kopun³

et al. 2014

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Preference for speech and music processed with nonlinear frequency compression and two controls (restricted and extended bandwidth hearing-aid processing) was examined in adults and children with hearing loss. Purpose Determine if stimulus type (music, sentences), age (children, adults) and degree of hearing loss influence listener preference for nonlinear frequency compression, restricted bandwidth and extended bandwidth. Research Design Within-subject, quasi-experimental study. Using a round-robin procedure, participants listened to amplified stimuli that were 1) frequency-lowered using nonlinear frequency compression, 2) low-pass filtered at 5 kHz to simulate the restricted bandwidth of conventional hearing aid processing, or 3) low-pass filtered at 11 kHz to simulate extended bandwidth amplification. The examiner and participants were blinded to the type of processing. Using a two-alternative forced-choice task, participants selected the preferred music or sentence passage. Study Sample Sixteen children (8–16 years) and 16 adults (19–65 years) with mild-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Intervention All subjects listened to speech and music processed using a hearing-aid simulator fit to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm v.5.0a (Scollie et al, 2005). Results Children and adults did not differ in their preferences. For speech, participants preferred extended bandwidth to both nonlinear frequency compression and restricted bandwidth. Participants also preferred nonlinear frequency compression to restricted bandwidth. Preference was not related to degree of hearing loss. For music, listeners did not show a preference. However, participants with greater hearing loss preferred nonlinear frequency compression to restricted bandwidth more than participants with less hearing loss. Conversely, participants with greater hearing loss were less likely to prefer extended bandwidth to restricted bandwidth. Conclusion Both age groups preferred access to high frequency sounds, as demonstrated by their preference for either the extended bandwidth or nonlinear frequency compression conditions over the restricted bandwidth condition. Preference for extended bandwidth can be limited for those with greater degrees of hearing loss, but participants with greater hearing loss may be more likely to prefer nonlinear frequency compression. Further investigation using participants with more severe hearing loss may be warranted.

show abstract

“…There has been little research published on the effect of this signal-processing scheme, especially when implemented with DNR. Plyler et al 23 evaluated expansion in a single-channel amplifier. They reported improved preference in quiet listening situations but degraded speech perception in both quiet and noise when input levels were at or below the activation threshold.…”

Section: Additional Gain Reduction Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview

Palchik

Bakken

Saad

et al. 2006

Trends in Amplification

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital noise reduction schemes are being used in most hearing aids currently marketed. Unlike the earlier analog schemes, these manufacturer-specific algorithms are developed to acoustically analyze the incoming signal and alter the gain/output characteristics according to their predetermined rules. Although most are modulation-based schemes (ie, differentiating speech from noise based on temporal characteristics), spectral subtraction techniques are being applied as well. The purpose of this article is to overview these schemes in terms of their differences and similarities.

show abstract

The Effects of Expansion on the Objective and Subjective Performance of Hearing Instrument Users

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

The acoustic and perceptual effects of two noise-suppression algorithms

The acoustic and perceptual effects of two noise-suppression algorithms

Paired Comparisons of Nonlinear Frequency Compression, Extended Bandwidth, and Restricted Bandwidth Hearing Aid Processing for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss

Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About