Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(07): 590-606
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17127
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Dual Variable Speed Compressor over a Single Fixed Speed Compressor

Francis Kuk
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Chris Slugocki
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Petri Korhonen
*   Widex Office of Research in Clinical Amplification (ORCA-USA), Lisle, IL
,
Eric Seper
†   University of Chicago Medicine, Audiology Program, Chicago, IL
,
Ole Hau
‡   Widex A/S, Lynge, Denmark
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 April 2018

20 April 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

It has been suggested that hearing-impaired listeners with a good working memory (WM) should be fitted with a compression system using short time constants (i.e., fast-acting compression [FAC]), whereas those with a poorer WM should be fitted with a longer time constant (i.e., slow-acting compression [SAC]). However, commercial hearing aids (HAs) seldom use a fixed speed of compression.

Purpose:

The performance of a variable speed compression (VSC) system relative to a fixed speed compressor (FAC and SAC) on measures of speech intelligibility, recall, and subjective report of listening effort and tolerable time was evaluated. The potential interaction with the listeners’ WM capacity (WMC) was also examined.

Research Design:

A double-blinded, repeated measures design.

Study Sample:

Seventeen HA wearers (16 with greater than one year HA experience) with a bilaterally symmetrical, mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants wore the study HAs at three compression speeds (FAC, SAC, and VSC). Each listener was evaluated on the Office of Research in Clinical Amplification-nonsense syllable test (NST) at 50 dB SPL (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] = +15 dB), 65 dB SPL (SNR = +5 dB), 80 dB SPL (SNR = 0 dB), and a split (80 dB SPL–50 dB SPL) condition. Listeners were also evaluated on a Repeat Recall Test (RRT), where they had to repeat six short sentences (both high- and low-context sentences) after each was presented. Listeners recalled target words in all six sentences after they were presented. They also rated their listening effort and the amount of time they would tolerate listening under the specific condition. RRT sentences were presented at 75 dB SPL in quiet, as well as SNR = 0, 5, 10, and 15 dB. A Reading Span Test (RST) was also administered to assess listeners’ WMC. Analysis of variance using RST scores as a covariate was used to examine differences in listener performance among compressor speeds.

Results:

Listener performance on the NST was similar among all three compression speeds at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL. Performance with FAC was significantly better than SAC for the split condition; however, performance did not differ between FAC and VSC or between SAC and VSC. Performance on the NST was not affected by listeners’ RST scores. On the RRT, there was no effect of compressor speed on measures of repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time. However, VSC resulted in significantly lower (better) speech reception threshold at the 85% correct recognition criterion (SRT85) than FAC and SAC. Listener RST scores significantly affected recall performance on the RRT but did not affect SRT85, repeat, listening effort, or tolerable time.

Conclusion:

These results suggest that the VSC, FAC, and SAC yield similar performance in most but not all test conditions. FAC outperforms SAC, where the stimulus levels change abruptly (i.e., split condition). The VSC yields a lower SRT85 than a fixed compression speed at a moderately high level with a favorable SNR. There is no interaction between compression speed and the participants’ WMC.

Key Words

compression speeds - cognition - fast-acting compression - slow-acting compression - variable speed compression
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Arehart K, Souza P, Baca R, Kates J. 2013; Working memory, age, and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear 34: 251-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Blamey P. 2005; Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 9: 77-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boike K, Souza P. 2000; Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43 (02) 456-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boyle P, Buchner A, Stone M, Lenarz T, Moore B. 2009; Comparison of dual time constant and fast acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 48: 211-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bregman A. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Cooke M. 2006; A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 119 (03) 1562-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • R Core Team 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria:
    Google Scholar
  • Cox R, Xu J. 2010; Short and long compression release times: speech understanding, real-world preferences, and association with cognitive ability. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (02) 121-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Daneman M, Carpenter P. 1980; Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 19: 450-466
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dillon H. 1996; Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times?. Ear Hear 17 (04) 287-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fogerty D, Entwistle J. 2015; Level considerations for chimeric processing: temporal envelope and fine structure contributions to speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 138 (05) 459-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. 2003; Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 42 (1, Suppl) S77-S85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. 2006; Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 45 (03) 153-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gilbert G, Akeroyd M, Gatehouse S. 2008; Discrimination of release time constants in hearing aid compressors. Int J Audiol 47 (04) 189-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hansen M. 2002; Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear 23 (04) 369-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hau O, Andersen H. 2012 Hearing aid compression: effects of speed, ratio and channel bandwidth on perceived sound quality. www.audiologyonline.com . Accessed April 2, 2012.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Holm S. 1979; A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stats 6 (02) 65-70
    Google Scholar
  • Holube I. EHIMA-ISMADHA Working Group 2006. Short Description of the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS). Oldenburg, Germany: Center of Competence HörTech and Institute of Hearing Technology and Audiology;
    Google Scholar
  • Jenstad L, Souza P. 2005; Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48 (03) 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jenstad L, Souza P. 2007; Temporal envelope changes of compression and speech rate: combined effects on recognition for older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50 (05) 1123-1138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F. 1996; Theoretical and practical considerations in compression hearing aids. Trends Amplif 1 (01) 5-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F. 1998; Rationale and requirements for a slow acting compression hearing aid. Hear J 51 (06) 45-53
    Google Scholar
  • Kuk F, Hau O. 2017; Compression speed and cognition: a variable speed compressor for all. Hear Rev 24 (03) 40-48
    Google Scholar
  • Kuk F, Lau C, Korhonen P, Crose B, Peeters H, Keenan D. 2010; Development of the ORCA nonsense syllable test. Ear Hear 31 (06) 779-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lai Y, Li P, Tsai K, Chu W, Young S. 2013; Measuring the long term SNRs of static and adaptive compression amplification techniques for speech in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (08) 671-683
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Linares D, López-Moliner J. 2016; Quickpsy: an R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. R J 8 (01) 122-131
    Google Scholar
  • Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn C, Garnier S, Moore B. 2006; Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 103: 18866-18869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. 1997; A digital filter-bank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms—user preference and performance. Ear Hear 18: 373-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lunner T. 2003; Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 42 (1, Suppl) S49-S58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. 2007; Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (07) 604-617
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lunner T, Rudner M, Rosenbom T, Agren J, Ng E. 2016; Using speech recall in hearing aid fitting and outcome evaluation under ecological test conditions. Ear Hear 37 (1, Suppl) 145S-154S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Magnusson L, Claesson A, Persson M, Tengstrand T. 2013; Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids—the limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction. Int J Audiol 52: 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore B. 2008; The choice of compression speed in hearing aids: theoretical and practical considerations and the role of individual differences. Trends Amplif 12 (02) 103-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore B, Glasberg B. 1988; A comparison of four methods of implementing automatic gain control (AGC) in hearing aids. Br J Audiol 22: 93-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore B, Stainsby T, Alcantara J, Kuhnel V. 2004; The effect on speech intelligibility of varying compression time constants in a digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol 43: 399-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Morey RD. 2008; Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial Quant Methods Psychol 4 (02) 61-64
    Google Scholar
  • Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Chertkow H. 2005; The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neuman A, Bakke M, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H. 1995; Effect of release time in compression hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 98 (06) 3182-3187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neuman A, Bakke M, Mackersie C, Hellman S, Levitt H. 1998; The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (05) 2273-2281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ng E, Rudner M, Lunner T, Ronnberg J. 2015; Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear 36: 82-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Oeding K, Valente M. 2013; Differences in sensation level between the Widex SoundTracker and two real-ear analyzers. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (08) 660-670
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ohlenforst B, Souza P, MacDonald E. 2015; Exploring the relationship between working memory, compressor speed, and background noise characteristics. Ear Hear 37 (02) 137-143
    Google Scholar
  • Pascoe D. 1988 Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formulas for hearing aid gain. Hearing Aid Fitting Theoretical and Practical Views. 13th Danavox Symposium. 129-151 Copenhagen, August 1988
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pearsons K, Bennett R, Fidell S. 1977. Speech levels in various noise environments. EPA report#600/1-77-025 Washington DC:
    Google Scholar
  • Pittman A, Pederson A, Rash M. 2014; Effects of fast, slow, and adaptive amplitude compression on children’s and adults’ perception of meaningful acoustic information. J Am Acad Audiol 25: 834-847
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plomp R. 1988; The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 83 (06) 2322-2327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Postle B. 2006; Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience 139 (01) 23-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rosen S, Faulkner A, Smith D. 1990; The psychoacoustics of profound hearing impairment. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 469: 16-22
    Google Scholar
  • Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. 2011; Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 22: 156-167
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shen J, Anderson M, Arehart K, Souza P. 2016; Using cognitive screening tests in audiology. Am J Audiol 25: 319-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shi L, Doherty K. 2008; Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51 (05) 1328-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Slugocki C, Kuk F, Korhonen P. 2018 Development of an integrated repeat and recall test (RRT). (submitted).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. 2015; Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (02) 183-196
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza P. 2000; Older listeners’ use of temporal cues altered by compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43 (03) 661-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza P. 2002; Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif 6 (04) 131-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza P, Jenstad L, Folino R. 2005; Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear 26 (02) 120-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza P, Sirow L. 2014; Relating working memory to compression parameters in clinically fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol 23 (04) 394-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stone M, Moore B, Alcantara J, Glasberg B. 1999; Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 106: 3603-3619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28: 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Valente M, Mispagel K. 2008; Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid. Int J Audiol 47 (06) 329-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Van den Noort M, Bosch P, Haverkort M, Hugdahl K. 2008; A standard computerized version of the reading span test in different languages. Eur J Psychol Assess 24 (01) 35-42
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Van Tasell D, Trine T. 1996; Effects of single-band syllabic amplitude compression on temporal speech information in nonsense syllables and in sentences. J Speech Hear Res 39 (05) 912-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wichmann F, Hill J. 2001; The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63 (08) 1293-1313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wu Y, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan S, Welhaven A, Oleson J. 2018; Characteristics of real world signal-to-noise rations and speech listening situations of older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 39 (02) 293-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar