Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(01): 016-030
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16165
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Influence of Instantaneous Compression on Recognition of Speech in Noise with Temporal Dips

Daniel M. Rasetshwane
*   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
David A. Raybine
*   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Judy G. Kopun
*   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Michael P. Gorga
*   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
,
Stephen T. Neely
*   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

In listening environments with background noise that fluctuates in level, listeners with normal hearing can “glimpse” speech during dips in the noise, resulting in better speech recognition in fluctuating noise than in steady noise at the same overall level (referred to as masking release). Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss show less masking release. Amplification can improve masking release but not to the same extent that it does for listeners with normal hearing.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to compare masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss obtained with an experimental hearing-aid signal-processing algorithm with instantaneous compression (referred to as a suppression hearing aid, SHA) to masking release obtained with fast compression. The suppression hearing aid mimics effects of normal cochlear suppression, i.e., the reduction in the response to one sound by the simultaneous presentation of another sound.

Research Design:

A within-participant design with repeated measures across test conditions was used.

Study Sample:

Participants included 29 adults with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and 21 adults with normal hearing.

Intervention:

Participants with sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with simulators for SHA and a generic hearing aid (GHA) with fast (but not instantaneous) compression (5 ms attack and 50 ms release times) and no suppression. Gain was prescribed using either an experimental method based on categorical loudness scaling (CLS) or the Desired Sensation Level (DSL) algorithm version 5a, resulting in a total of four processing conditions: CLS-GHA, CLS-SHA, DSL-GHA, and DSL-SHA.

Data Collection:

All participants listened to consonant-vowel-consonant nonwords in the presence of temporally-modulated and steady noise. An adaptive-tracking procedure was used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio required to obtain 29% and 71% correct. Measurements were made with amplification for participants with sensorineural hearing loss and without amplification for participants with normal hearing.

Analysis:

Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine the influence of within-participant factors of noise type and, for participants with sensorineural hearing loss, processing condition on masking release. Pearson correlational analysis was used to assess the effect of age on masking release for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.

Results:

Statistically significant masking release was observed for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss for 29% correct, but not for 71% correct. However, the amount of masking release was less than masking release for participants with normal hearing. There were no significant differences among the amplification conditions for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that amplification with either instantaneous or fast compression resulted in similar masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. However, the masking release was less for participants with hearing loss than it was for those with normal hearing.

Key Words

aided audibility index - hearing aids - instantaneous compression - masking release
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Al-Salim SC, Kopun JG, Neely ST, Jesteadt W, Stiegemann B, Gorga MP. 2010; Reliability of categorical loudness scaling and its relation to threshold. Ear Hear 31 (04) 567-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander JM, Masterson K. 2015; Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition. Ear Hear 36 (02) e35-e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005) Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry [Guidelines]. www.asha.org/policy
  • American National Standards Institute 1997. American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5-1997. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute 2004. Specification for Octave-Band and Fractional-Octave-Band Analog and Digital Filters. ANSI S1.11-2004. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. 2013; Working memory, age, and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear 34 (03) 251-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY. 1998; The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (03) 549-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baer T, Moore BCJ. 1993; Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 94 (03) 1229-1241
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baer T, Moore BCJ. 1994; Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (04) 2277-2280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bernstein JG, Grant KW. 2009; Auditory and auditory-visual intelligibility of speech in fluctuating maskers for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 125 (05) 3358-3372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bernstein JG, Brungart DS. 2011; Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (01) 473-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brand T, Hohmann V. 2002; An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am 112 (04) 1597-1604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brennan M, Souza P. 2009; Effects of expansion on consonant recognition and consonant audibility. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (02) 119-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brennan M, McCreery R, Kopun J, Lewis D, Alexander J, Stelmachowicz P. 2016; Masking release in children and adults with hearing loss when using amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (01) 110-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR. (2001) Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 110(5):2527–2538.
  • Byrne D. et al. 1994; An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 96 (04) 2108-2120
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dubno JR, Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB. 2003; Recovery from prior stimulation: masking of speech by interrupted noise for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113 (4 Pt 1) 2084-2094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Duquesnoy AJ. 1983; Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J Acoust Soc Am 74 (03) 739-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenberg LS, Dirks DD, Bell TS. 1995; Speech recognition in amplitude-modulated noise of listeners with normal and listeners with impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res 38 (01) 222-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Festen JM. 1993; Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. J Acoust Soc Am 94 (3 Pt 1) 1295-1300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Festen JM, Plomp R. 1990; Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88 (04) 1725-1736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fleiss JL. 1981. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 598-626
    Google Scholar
  • Fogerty D, Ahlstrom JB, Bologna WJ, Dubno JR. 2016; Glimpsing speech in the presence of nonsimultaneous amplitude modulations from a competing talker: effect of modulation rate, age, and hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (05) 1198-1207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Freyman RL, Balakrishnan U, Helfer KS. 2004; Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (5 Pt 1) 2246-2256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Füllgrabe C, Berthommier F, Lorenzi C. 2006; Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res 211 1–2 74-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Füllgrabe C, Moore BCJ, Stone MA. 2015; Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci 6: 347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geertzen J. 2012 Inter-rater Agreement with Multiple Raters and Variables. Retrieved October 17, 2016. https://nlp-ml.io/jg/software/ira/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • George ELJ, Festen JM, Houtgast T. 2006; Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 120 (04) 2295-2311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gorga MP, Neely ST, Kopun J, Tan H. 2011; a Growth of suppression in humans based on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 129 (02) 801-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gorga MP, Neely ST, Kopun J, Tan H. 2011; b Distortion-product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 129 (02) 817-827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gregan MJ, Nelson PB, Oxenham AJ. 2013; Behavioral measures of cochlear compression and temporal resolution as predictors of speech masking release in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 134 (04) 2895-2912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gustafsson HÅ, Arlinger SD. 1994; Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (01) 518-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Roush PA. 2012; Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation. Ear Hear 33 (03) 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Herzke T, Hohmann V. 2005; Effects of instantaneous multiband dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process 2005 (18) 3034-3043
    Google Scholar
  • Hohmann V. 2002; Frequency analysis and synthesis using a Gammatone filterbank. Acta Acust United Acust 88: 433-443
    Google Scholar
  • Houtgast R. 1974; Auditory analysis of vowel-like sounds. Acta Acust United Acust 31: 320-324
    Google Scholar
  • IEEE 1969; IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 17 (03) 225-246
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • International Organization for Standardization 2006. Acoustics - loudness scaling by means of categories. ISO 16832:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO;
    Google Scholar
  • Jin SH, Nelson PB. 2006; Speech perception in gated noise: the effects of temporal resolution. J Acoust Soc Am 119 (5 Pt 1) 3097-3108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kates JM, Arehart KH. 2014; a The hearing-aid speech perception index (HASPI). Speech Commun 65: 75-93
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kates JM, Arehart KH. 2014; b The hearing-aid speech quality index (HASQI) version 2. J Audio Eng Soc 62 (03) 99-117
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kressner AA, Anderson DV, Rozell CJ. 2013; Evaluating the generalization of the hearing aid speech quality index (HASQI). IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 21 (02) 407-415
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kwon BJ, Turner CW. 2001; Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference?. J Acoust Soc Am 110 (02) 1130-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Levitt H. 1971; Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49 (02) (Suppl) 467-477
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. 2011; Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (06) 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCreery RW, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2013; Maximizing audibility and speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression by estimating audible bandwidth. Ear Hear 34 (02) e24-e27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Stone MA. 1999; Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 105 (01) 400-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neely ST, Johnson TA, Gorga MP. 2005; Distortion-product otoacoustic emission measured with continuously varying stimulus level. J Acoust Soc Am 117 (3 Pt 1) 1248-1259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neher T. 2014; Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users’ preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality. Front Neurosci 8: 391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nelson DA, Schroder AC, Wojtczak M. 2001; A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 110 (04) 2045-2064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nelson PB, Jin SH. 2004; Factors affecting speech understanding in gated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (5 Pt 1) 2286-2294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Oxenham AJ, Simonson AM, Turicchia L, Sarpeshkar R. 2007; Evaluation of companding-based spectral enhancement using simulated cochlear-implant processing. J Acoust Soc Am 121 (03) 1709-1716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Peters RW, Moore BCJ, Baer T. 1998; Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (01) 577-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plomp R. 1994; Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 15 (01) 2-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rasetshwane DM, Neely ST, Kopun JG, Gorga MP. 2013; Relation of distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions to loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 134 (01) 369-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rasetshwane DM, Gorga MP, Neely ST. 2014; Signal-processing strategy for restoration of cross-channel suppression in hearing-impaired listeners. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61 (01) 64-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rasetshwane DM, Brennan MA, Kopun JG, Neely ST, Gorga MP. 2014 Evaluation of a hearing-aid signal-processing strategy for restoration of cross-channel suppression. Poster presented at International Hearing Aid Research Conference, Tahoe, CA
    PubMed
  • Rasetshwane DM, Trevino AC, Gombert JN, Liebig-Trehearn L, Kopun JG, Jesteadt W, Neely ST, Gorga MP. 2015; Categorical loudness scaling and equal-loudness contours in listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 137 (04) 1899-1913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rosen S, Souza P, Ekelund C, Majeed AA. 2013; Listening to speech in a background of other talkers: effects of talker number and noise vocoding. J Acoust Soc Am 133 (04) 2431-2443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sachs MB, Young ED. 1980; Effects of nonlinearities on speech encoding in the auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am 68 (03) 858-875
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. 2005; The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sieck NE, Rasetshwane DM, Kopun JG, Jesteadt W, Gorga MP, Neely ST. 2016; Multi-tone suppression of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 139 (05) 2299-2309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Simpson SA, Cooke M. 2005; Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am 118 (05) 2775-2778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Snell KB, Mapes FM, Hickman ED, Frisina DR. 2002; Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 112 (02) 720-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Steeneken HJM, Houtgast T. 1980; A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am 67 (01) 318-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE, Kalberer L, Creutz T. 1994. Situational Hearing-Aid Response Profile Users Manual (SHARP, v. 6.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital;
    Google Scholar
  • Stone MA, Moore BCJ, Meisenbacher K, Derleth RP. 2008; Tolerable hearing aid delays. V. Estimation of limits for open canal fittings. Ear Hear 29 (04) 601-617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stone MA, Füllgrabe C, Mackinnon RC, Moore BCJ. 2011; The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in “steady” background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (05) 2874-2881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stone MA, Moore BCJ. 2014; On the near non-existence of “pure” energetic masking release for speech. J Acoust Soc Am 135 (04) 1967-1977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tan CT, Moore BCJ. 2004 Comparison of two forms of fast-acting compression using physical and subjective measures. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Congress on Acoustics, Kyoto, Japan. II:1393–1396
    PubMed
  • ter Keurs M, Festen JM, Plomp R. 1993; a Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. J Acoust Soc Am 93 (03) 1547-1552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • ter Keurs M, Festen JM, Plomp R. 1993; b Limited resolution of spectral contrast and hearing loss for speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 94 (3 Pt 1) 1307-1314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Turicchia L, Sarpeshkar R. 2005; A bio-inspired companding strategy for spectral enhancement. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process 13 (02) 243-253
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Xu L, Thompson CS, Pfingst BE. 2005; Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 117 (05) 3255-3267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar