Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.31 362-376 September 1988.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boothroyd, A.
Right arrow Articles by Schulman, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boothroyd, A.
Right arrow Articles by Schulman, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Amplitude Compression and Profound Hearing Loss

Arthur Boothroyd 1
Nancy Springer 1
Lynn Smith 1

Jane Schulman 1

1 Research Division, Lexington Center and City University of New York

Nine subjects with prelingually acquired, sensorineural, hearing loss were given a three-interval, forced-choice, test of speech pattern contrast perception under two amplification conditions. The first involved adjustment of the low and high frequency outputs of a two-channel Master Hearing Aid to each subject's highest comfortable level, but without compression of the short-term dynamic range of the signal. The second involved the additional compression of a 30 dB input range into the subject's dynamic range of hearing, as measured by the difference between speech awareness threshold and highest comfortable level, in each of the two channels. One of the subjects performed much better with compression than without. Among the other eight, however, there was a small but significant reduction of performance when compression was introduced. It is proposed that the one positive result is due to the increased audibility of speech cues made possible by amplitude compression. It is further proposed that the negative results are due mainly to the distortions of time-intensity cues introduced by amplitude compression. The results suggest that, in terms of potential access to meaningful speech cues, the addition of amplitude compression, to an otherwise optimize signal, is unnecessary, or even detrimental, for most profoundly deaf subjects, but could be beneficial for some.

Submitted on February 2, 1987
Accepted on October 16, 1987


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
D. E. Lewis
Selecting and Pre-Setting Amplification for Children: Where Do We Begin?
Trends in Amplification, June 1, 1999; 4(2): 72 - 89.
[PDF]