ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Oct 1991

Effects of Different Frequency Response Strategies Upon Recognition and Preference for Audible Speech Stimuli

    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3405.1185

    The purpose of this study was to examine whether the amount of low. versus high-frequency amplification should change as a function of input level, as is done in some recently developed hearing aids. Adults with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss served as subjects. Both identification performance and preference judgments for audible CV syllables were assessed as a function of input level for three different signal processing conditions both in quiet and in noise. The first signal processing condition was a conventional high-pass frequency response that did not change its transfer function as the input level increased; the second condition was similar to a typical adaptive frequency response (AFR) hearing aid: a high-pass frequency response that became increasingly high-pass as the input level increased; the third condition was similar to the K-Amp hearing aid recommended by Killion (1988): a high-pass frequency response that became more broadband as the input level increased. Results indicated no significant differences among the three different processing conditions for syllable recognition and a strong listener preference for the syllables presented via the conventional amplification scheme.

    References

    • Barfod, J. (1978). Multichannel compression hearing aids: Experiments and consideration on clinical applicability.In C. Ludvigsen & J. Barfod, (Eds.), Sensorineural hearing impairment and hearing aids, Scandinavian Audiology Supplement, 6, 315–378.
      Google Scholar
    • Danaher, E., Osberger, M., & Pickett, J. (1973). Discrimination of formant frequency transitions in synthetic vowels.Journal of Speech and Hearing, 16, 439–451.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Danaher, E., & Pickett, J. (1975). Some masking effects produced by low-frequency vowel formants in persons with sensorineural hearing loss.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 261–271.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Fabry, D. A. (1988a). Non-digital noise suppression circuits. Presented at the Mayo Clinic Symposium in Audiology, Rochester, MN.
      Google Scholar
    • Fabry, D. A. (1988b). Evaluation of an Articulation Index-based model for assessing adaptive frequency response hearing aids. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
      Google Scholar
    • Gagne, J. P. (1988). Excess masking among listeners with a sensorineural hearing loss.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 2311–2321.
      Google Scholar
    • Kates, J. (1986). Signal processing for hearing aids.Hearing Instruments, 37, 19–21.
      Google Scholar
    • Killion, M. (1988). An “acoustically invisible” hearing aid.Hearing Instruments, 39, 40–44.
      Google Scholar
    • Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 971–995.
      Google Scholar
    • Klatt, D. H. (1982). Prediction of perceived phonetic distance from critical-band spectra: A first step.In Proceedings of the International Congress on Acoustics, Speech. Signal Processing, Paris, IEEE, 129, 1278–1281.
      Google Scholar
    • Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467–477.
      Google Scholar
    • Martin, E., & Pickett, J. (1970). Sensorineural hearing loss and upward spread of masking.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 13, 426–437.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Murnane, O., & Turner, C. W. (1987). Growth of masking in sensorineural hearing loss. Paper presented at ASHA Annual Convention, New Orleans.
      Google Scholar
    • Ono, H., Kanzaki, J., & Mizoi, K. (1983). Clinical results of hearing aid with noise-level-controlled selective amplification.Audiology, 22, 494–515.
      Google Scholar
    • Punch, J., & Beck, E. (1980). Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 325–335.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Skinner, M. (1980). Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high-frequency compensation.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 306–317.
      Google Scholar
    • Smits, J., & Duifhuis, H. (1982). Masking and partial masking in listeners with a high-frequency hearing loss.Audiology, 21, 310–324.
      Google Scholar
    • Stein, L. K., & Dempesy-Hart, D. (1984). Listener-assessed intelligibility of a hearing aid self-adaptive noise filter.Ear and Hearing, 5, 199–204.
      Google Scholar
    • Stelmachowicz, P., Lewis, D., Larson, L., & Jesteadt, W. (1987). Growth of masking as a measure of response growth in hearing-impaired listeners.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 6, 1881–1887.
      Google Scholar
    • Studebaker, G. A. (1985). A “rationalized” arcsine transform.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 455–462.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Tecca, J., & Goldstein, D. (1984). Effect of low-frequency hearing aid response on four measures of speech perception.Ear and Hearing, 5, 22–29.
      Google Scholar
    • Thompson, G., & Lassman, F. (1970). Listener preference for selective versus flat amplification for a high-frequency hearing-loss population.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 13, 667–672.
      Google Scholar
    • Thornton, A. R., & Raffin, M. J. M. (1978). Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 507–518.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Trees, D., & Turner, C. W. (1986). Spread of masking in normal subjects and in subjects with high-frequency hearing loss.Audiology, 25, 70–83.
      Google Scholar
    • Turner, C. W., & Robb, M. (1987). Audibility and recognition of stop consonants in normal and hearing-impared subjects.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 81, 1566–1573.
      Google Scholar
    • Tyler, R. S., & Kuk, F. K. (1989). The effects of “noise suppression” hearing aids on consonant recognition in speech-babble and low-frequency noise.Ear and Hearing, 10, 243–249.
      Google Scholar
    • Van Dijkhuizen, J. N., Festen, J. M., & Plomp, R. (1989) The effect of varying the amplitude-frequency response on the masked speech-reception threshold of sentences for hearing-impaired listeners.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 621–628.
      Google Scholar
    • Van Tasell, D. J., Larsen, S., & Fabry, D. (1988). Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing-impaired subjects.Ear and Hearing, 9, 15–21.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Van Tasell, D. J., & Yanz, J. (1987). Speech recognition threshold in noise: Effects of hearing loss, frequency response, and speech materials.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 377–386.
      AbstractGoogle Scholar
    • Wolinsky, S. (1986). Clinical assessment of a self-adaptive noise filtering system.The Hearing Journal, 30, 29–32.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources