The effect of presentation level and compression characteristics on sentence recognition in modulated noise

References

• American National Standards Institute. American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI, New York 1998, ANSI S3.79
   Google Scholar
• Boike K. T. , Souza P. E. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43(2)456–468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A., Springer N., Smith L., Schulman J. Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31(3)362–376
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Byrne D. Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to?. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7(6)377–395
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dillon H. Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times?. Ear Hear 1996; 17(4)287–307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. Hearing Aids. Boomerang Press, Sydney 2001
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W. A., Maré M. J., Boermans P. P., Verschuure J. Compression in hearing aids: frequency dependence and effects in background noise. Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology, 15th Danavox symposium, Denmark, J. Beilin, G. R. Jensen. Stougaard Jensen, Copenhagen 1993; 253–272
   Google Scholar
• Dreschler W. A., Verschuure J. Psychoacoustical evaluation of fast compression systems. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, B. Kollmeier, Singapore 1996; 183–191
   Google Scholar
• Drullman R. Speech intelligibility in noise: relative contribution of speech elements above and below the noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 98(3)1796–1798
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen J. M. Contributions of comodulation masking release and temporal resolution to the speech-reception threshold masked by an interfering voice. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94(3 Pt 1)1295–1300
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Festen J. M., Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73(2)652–662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg B. R., Moore B. C. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear hearing impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scand Audiol Suppl 1989; 32: 1–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goedegebure A., Hulshof M., Maas R. J., Dreschler W. A., Verschuure H. Effects of single-channel phonemic compression schemes on the understanding of speech by hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 2001; 40(1)10–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goedegebure A., Hulshof M., Maas A., Vershuure J. The effect of syllabic compression on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired. Psychoacoustics, Speech and Hearing Aids, B. Kollmeier. World Scientific, Singapore 1996; 165–170
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson H. A., Arlinger S. D. Masking of speech by amplitudemodulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95(1)518–529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 1982; 11(2)79–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 1984; 13(1)57–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Speech recognition threshold in slightly and fully modulated noise for hearing-impaired subjects. Int J Audiol 2002; 41(6)321–329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman B., Kinnefors C. Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. Scand Audiol 1995; 24(1)71–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsby B. W., Ricketts T. A. The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normalhearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109(6)2964–2973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. Occluded-ear Simulator for the Measurement of Earphones Coupled to the Ear by Ear Inserts. IEC, Geneva 1981, IEC 60711
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. Hearing Aids. Part 0: Measurement of Electroacoustical Characteristics (amended 1994). IEC, Geneva 1983, IEC 60118-0
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics-Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment. Part 1. Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Supra-aural Earphones. ISO, Geneva 1998, ISO 389
   Google Scholar
• Killion M. C. Revised estimate of minimum audible pressure: where is the ‘missing 6 dB’?. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 63(5)1501–1508
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B. C. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearing aids. Ear Hear 1996; 17(2)133–161
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B. C., Glasberg B. R. Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74(3)750–753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B. C., Johnson J. S., Clark T. M., Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992a; 13(5)349–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B. C., Lynch C., Stone M. A. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 1992b; 26(6)369–379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B. C., Peters R. W., Stone M. A. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105(1)400–411
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olofsson Å. Nonlinear distortion measure for hearing aids with speech as input signal. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference, Bethesda, Maryland, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29(2)146–154
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83(6)2322–2327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P. E., Kitch V. The contribution of amplitude envelope cues to sentence identification in young and aged listeners. Ear Hear 2001; 22(2)112–119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P. E., Turner C. W. Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41(2)315–326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steeneken H. J., Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67(1)318–326
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone M. A., Moore B. C., Alcantara J. I., Glasberg B. R. Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106(6)3603–3619
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone M. A., Moore B. C., Wojtczak M., Gudgin E. Effects of fast-acting high-frequency compression on the intelligibility of speech in steady and fluctuating background sounds. Br J Audiol 1997; 31(4)257–273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart A., Phillips D. P. Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusic listeners. Ear Hear 1996; 17(6)478–489
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ter Keurs M., Festen J. M., Plomp R. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93(3)1547–1552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Buuren R. A., Festen J. M., Houtgast T. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105(5)2903–2913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Harten-de Bruijn H. E., van Kreveld-Bos C. S., Dreschler W. A., Verschuure H. Design of two syllabic nonlinear multichannel signal processors and the results of speech tests in noise. Ear Hear 1997; 18(1)26–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Tasell D. J., Trine T. D. Effects of single-band syllabic amplitude compression on temporal speech information in nonsense syllables and in sentences. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39(5)912–922
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verschuure J., Benning F. J., Van Cappellen M., Dreschler W. A., Boeremans P. P. Speech intelligibility in noise with fast compression hearing aids. Audiology 1998; 37(3)127–150
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yund E. W., Buckles K. M. Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97(2)1224–1240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yund E. W., Simon H. J., Efron R. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise. J Rehabil Res Dev 1987; 24(4)161–180
   PubMedGoogle Scholar