TY - JOUR
T1 - Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners
T2 - Effects on speech recognition and quality
AU - Souza, Pamela E.
AU - Jenstad, Lorienne M.
AU - Folino, Richard
PY - 2005/4
Y1 - 2005/4
N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition across a sampling of amplification choices available for listeners with severe loss. This includes conventional options (linear with peak clipping and linear with compression limiting) and newer strategies (multichannel wide-dynamic range compression [WDRC]) theorized to better accommodate reduced dynamic range. A second objective was to compare speech quality across the same conditions using a paired-comparison test. Design: Participants were 13 adults with severe sensorineural hearing loss and a control group of seven adults with normal hearing. Test materials included consonant-vowel syllables (speech recognition) and sentences (speech quality). Four amplification conditions were included: peak clipping; compression limiting; two-channel WDRC; and three-channel WDRC, with overall audibility similar across conditions. In the WDRC conditions, the compression ratio was fixed at 3:1 in each channel. Consonant recognition was measured using a closed-set task, and speech quality was measured using a paired-comparison test. Results: For the listeners with severe loss, recognition and preference were lower for a three-channel WDRC system than for a compression limiting system. Specific errors were consistent with poorer transmission of amplitude envelope information by the multichannel WDRC systems. Conclusions: Under some conditions, the benefit of fast-acting, multichannel WDRC systems relative to more linear amplification strategies may be reduced in listeners with severe loss. Performance decrements with these systems are consistent with consequences of broader auditory filters.
AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition across a sampling of amplification choices available for listeners with severe loss. This includes conventional options (linear with peak clipping and linear with compression limiting) and newer strategies (multichannel wide-dynamic range compression [WDRC]) theorized to better accommodate reduced dynamic range. A second objective was to compare speech quality across the same conditions using a paired-comparison test. Design: Participants were 13 adults with severe sensorineural hearing loss and a control group of seven adults with normal hearing. Test materials included consonant-vowel syllables (speech recognition) and sentences (speech quality). Four amplification conditions were included: peak clipping; compression limiting; two-channel WDRC; and three-channel WDRC, with overall audibility similar across conditions. In the WDRC conditions, the compression ratio was fixed at 3:1 in each channel. Consonant recognition was measured using a closed-set task, and speech quality was measured using a paired-comparison test. Results: For the listeners with severe loss, recognition and preference were lower for a three-channel WDRC system than for a compression limiting system. Specific errors were consistent with poorer transmission of amplitude envelope information by the multichannel WDRC systems. Conclusions: Under some conditions, the benefit of fast-acting, multichannel WDRC systems relative to more linear amplification strategies may be reduced in listeners with severe loss. Performance decrements with these systems are consistent with consequences of broader auditory filters.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=16844374709&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=16844374709&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/00003446-200504000-00002
DO - 10.1097/00003446-200504000-00002
M3 - Article
C2 - 15809540
AN - SCOPUS:16844374709
SN - 0196-0202
VL - 26
SP - 120
EP - 131
JO - Ear and hearing
JF - Ear and hearing
IS - 2
ER -