Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids

References

• Amlani A.M., Punch J.L. & Ching T.Y.C. 2002. Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fitting. Trends Amp, 6, 81–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ANSI S3.5-1997. American National Standard: Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.22-1996. American National Standard: Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Arehart K.H., Kates J.M. & Anderson M.C. 2009. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived sound quality. Submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Bisgaard N. 2007. Report on Selection of Standard Audiograms for the ISMADHA Measurement Procedure. EHIMA Technical Committee Report, August 6, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Braida L.D., Durlach N.I., Lippmann R.P., Hicks B.L., Rabinowitz W.M. . 1979. Hearing aids: A review of past research on linear amplification, amplitude compression, and frequency lowering. Am Speech Lang Hear Assn, ASHA Monograph 19.
   Google Scholar
• Bustamante D.K. & Braida L.D. 1987. Multiband compression limiting for hearing-impaired listeners. J Rehab Res Dev, 24, 149–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne D. & Dillon H. 1986. The National-Acoustic-Laboratories NAL new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency-response of a hearing-aid Ear Hear, 7, 257–265.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H., Ching T., Katsch R. & Keidser G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carter G.C., Knapp C.H. & Nuttall A.H. 1973. Estimation of the magnitude-squared coherence function via overlapped fast Fourier transform processing. IEEE Trans. Audio and Electroacoustics, 21, 337–344.
   Google Scholar
• Crain T.R. & Yund E.W. 1995. The effect of multichannel compression on vowel and stop-consonant discrimination in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Ear Hear, 16, 529–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies-Venn E., Souza P. & Fabry D. 2007. Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 688–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 1996. Compression? Yes, but for high or low frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear, 17, 287–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg L.S., Dirks D.D., Takayanagi S. & Martinez A.S. 1998. Subjective judgements of clarity and intelligibility for filtered stimuli with equivalent speech intelligibility index predictions. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 41, 327–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elberling C. 1999. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 248–260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fredelake S., Holube I. & Hansen M. 2006. Comparison of objective and subjective measures for sound quality and speech intelligibility in nonlinear hearing instruments, Int. Hearing Aid Conf., Lake Tahoe, USA, August 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen M. 2002. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear & Hear, 23, 369–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Telecommunication Union (2003). ITU-R: BS.1284-1, ‘General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality.’
   Google Scholar
• Jenstad L.M. & Souza P.E. 2005. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 48, 651–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. 1992. On using coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 2236–2244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. 2005. Principles of digital compression. Trends Amp, 9, 45–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2005a. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2224–2237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2005b. Multi-channel dynamic-range compression using digital frequency warping. EURASIP J Appl Sig Proc, 3003–3014.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2007. A time-frequency modulation model of speech quality. Proc. 2007 IEEE Workshop on Appl. of Sig. Process. to Audio and Acoustics, New Paltz, New York, Oct 21–24, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2009a. A speech quality metric based on a cochlear model. Acoust Soc Am, 157^th Meeting, Portland, USA, May 21, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. & Arehart K.H. 2009b. The hearing aid speech quality index (HASQI). Submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Keidser G. & Grant F. 2001. The preferred number of channels one, two, or four in NAL-NL1 prescribed wide dynamic range compression WRDC devices. Ear Hear, 22, 516–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Brew C., Brewer S., Dillon H., Grant F. . 2005. The preferred response slopes and two-channel compression ratios in twenty listening conditions by hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners and their relationship to the acoustic input. Int J Audiol, 44, 656–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King A.B. & Martin M.C. 1984. Is AGC beneficial in hearing aids? Brit J Audiol, 18, 31–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laurence R.F., Moore B.C.J. & Glasberg B.R. 1983. A comparison of behind-the-ear high-fidelity linear hearing aids and two-channel compression aids, in the laboratory and in everyday life. Brit J Audiol, 17, 31–48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levitt H. 2003. Compression amplification. In: Bacon S.P., Fay R.R. & Popper. A.N Compression: From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants.New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann R.P., Braida L.D. & Durlach N.I. 1981. Study of multichannel amplitude compression and linear amplification for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 69, 524–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma J., Hu Y. & Loizou P.C 2009. Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 125, 3387–3405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2000. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore ‘normal’ loudness for speech at different levels, Br J Audiol, 34, 165–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Hellman S. & Levitt H. 1995a. Preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids. Ear Hear, 16, 407–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Mackersie C., Hellman S. & Levitt H. 1995b. Effect of release time in compression hearing aids: Paired comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 3182–3187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., 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, 2273–2281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M., Ghent R.M., Bray V. . 2005. Development of a test environment to evaluate performance of modern hearing aid features. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 27–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson M., Soli S.D & Sullivan J. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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, 2322–2327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preminger J.E & Van Tasell D.J 1995. Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. J Sp Hear Res, 38, 714–725.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie S., Seewald R., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M. . 2005. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amp, 9, 159–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi L-F. & Doherty K.A. 2008. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 51, 1328–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith J.O. & Abel J.S. 1999. Bark and ERB bilinear transforms. IEEE Trans Sp Audiol Proc, 7, 697–708.
   Google Scholar
• Souza P.E. 2002. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amp, 6, 131–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Souza P.E., Jenstad L.M. & Folino R. 2005. Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: Effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear, 26, 120–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P.E. & Turner C.W. 1999. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear, 20, 12–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P., Lewis D. & Creutz T. 2009. Situational Hearing-Aid Response Profile (SHARP, v6.0) User’s Manual. Omaha, NE: Boys Town Nat. Res. Hosp.
   Google Scholar
• Stone M.A., Moore B.C.J, Alcántara J.I. & Glasberg B.R. 1999. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 3603–3619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Buuren R.A., Festen J.M. & Houtgast T. 1999. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2903–2913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villchur E. 1973. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am, 53, 163–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yund E.W. & Buckles K.M1995a. Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1206–1223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yund E.W. & Buckles K.M. 1995b. Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 1224–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar