Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 267, Issue 7, pp 1045–1053 | Cite as

Advantages of a non-linear frequency compression algorithm in noise

  • Andrea Bohnert
  • Myriel Nyffeler
  • Annerose Keilmann
Otology

Abstract

A multichannel non-linear frequency compression algorithm was evaluated in comparison to conventional amplification hearing aids using a test of speech understanding in noise (Oldenburger Satztest—OLSA) and subjective questionnaires. The new algorithm compresses frequencies above a pre-calculated cut off frequency and shifts them to a lower frequency range, thereby providing high-frequency audibility. Low-frequencies, below the compression cut off frequency, are amplified normally. This algorithm is called SoundRecover (SR). In this study, 11 experienced hearing aid users with a severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss were tested. Seven subjects showed enhanced levels of understanding in noise (OLSA) using frequency compression. However, 4 out of the 11 subjects could not benefit from the high-frequency gain. Evaluation using questionnaires demonstrated an increased level of satisfaction after 2 months of experimental devices wearing (p = 0.08) and after 4 months of wearing (p = 0.09), respectively, compared to conventional hearing instruments.

Keywords

Profound hearing loss High-frequency audibility Multichannel non-linear frequency compression algorithm Speech understanding in noise Subjective questionnaires 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Mainz and the use of human subjects was in accordance with the “Guiding principles for research involving human or animals subjects”. The authors are extremely grateful to the thoughtful comments of the Reviewer. The present study was supported by Phonak AG, Stäfa. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. They confirm independence from the sponsor; the content of the article has not been influenced by the sponsor.

References

  1. 1.
    Baer T, Moore BC, Kluk K (2002) Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 112:1133–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagatto M, Scollie S, Glista D, Pasa V, Seewald R (2008) Case study outcomes of hearing impaired listeners using nonlinear frequency compression technology. Audiology (Online)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K et al (1994) An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2108–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D (1998) Speech recognition of hearing impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1128–1140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hogan CA, Turner CW (1998) High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 104:432–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johannson B (1961) A new coding amplifier system for the severly hard of hearing. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international congress on acoustics, vol 2. Stuttgart, 1959, pp 655–657Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ling D (1968) Three experiments on frequency transposition. Am Ann Deaf 113:283–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDermott HJ, Dean MR, Dillon H (1999) Control of hearing-aid saturated sound pressure level by frequency-shaped output compression limiting. Scand Audiol 28(1):27–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDermott HJ, Knight MR (2001) Preliminary results with the AVR Impact frequency-transposing hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 12(3):121–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore BC, Glasberg BR (1997) A model of loudness speech perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud Neurosci 3:289–311Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore BC (2001) Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif 5:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neary T (1989) Static, dynamic and rational properties in vowel perception. J Acoust Soc Am 85:2088–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pittman AL, Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE, Hoover BM (2003) Spectral characteristics of speech at the ear: implications for amplification in children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 46:649–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ (2005) Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol 44(5):281–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson A, Hersbach AA, McDermott HJ (2006) Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol 45(11):619–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stelmachowicz PG, Pittmann AL, Hoover BM, Lewis D (2001) The effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of/s/in normal and hearing impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2183–2190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stelmachowicz PG, Pittmann AL, Hoover BM, Lewis DE, Moeller MP (2004) The importance of high-frequency audibility in the speech and language development of children with hearing loss. Arch Otolarngol Head Neck Surg 130:556–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turner CW, Hurtig RR (1999) Proportional frequency-compression of speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 106:877–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Velmans M, Marcuson M (1983) The acceptability of spectrum-preserving and spectrum-destroying transposition to severely hearing-impaired listeners. Br J Audiol 17:17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vickers DA, Baer T, Moore BC (2001) Effects of low pass filtering on speech intelligibility for listeners with dead regions at high frequencies. Br J Audiol 35:148–149Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztestes für die deutsche Sprache Teil III: Evaluation des Oldenbruger Satztestes. Zeitschrift für Audiologie 38:86–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bohnert
    • 1
  • Myriel Nyffeler
    • 2
  • Annerose Keilmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ENT and Communication DisordersMainz Medical SchoolMainzGermany
  2. 2.Phonak AGStäfaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations