HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chung, K. Articles by Christensen, L. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chung, K. Articles by Christensen, L. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ranking Hearing Aid Input–Output Functions for Understanding Low-, Conversational-, and High-Level Speech in Multitalker Babble

Mead C. Killion
Etymotic Research and Northwestern University and Rush University and City University of New York

Laurel A. Christensen
Etymotic Research and Northwestern University

Contact author: King Chung, who is now with the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, Heavilon Hall B32, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: kingchung{at}purdue.edu.

Purpose: To determine the rankings of 6 input–output functions for understanding low-level, conversational, and high-level speech in multitalker babble without manipulating volume control for listeners with normal hearing, flat sensorineural hearing loss, and mildly sloping sensorineural hearing loss.

Method: Peak clipping, compression limiting, and 4 wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) input–output functions were compared in a repeated-measure design. Interactions among the compression characteristics were minimized. Speech and babble were processed and recorded at 3 input levels: 45, 65, and 90 dB sound pressure level. Speech recognition of 3 groups of listeners (n = 6/group) was tested for speech processed by each input–output function and at each input level.

Results: Input–output functions that made low-level speech audible and high-level speech less distorted by avoiding peak clipping or severe compression yielded higher speech recognition scores. These results are consistent with previous findings in the literature.

Conclusion: WDRCs with the low compression ratio region extended to a high input level or with a high compression limiting threshold were the best for speech recognition in babble when the hearing aid user cannot or does not want to manipulate the volume control. Future studies on subjective preferences of different input–output functions are needed.

KEY WORDS: hearing aid, compression, input–output function, speech recognition

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?