Comments on ‘‘The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function’’ [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. <b>8</b>
                  <b>3</b>, 2322–2327 (1988)]

Villchur, Edgar

doi:10.1121/1.398306

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A multiband syllabic compression system with more than several channels (for example 8 or 16) was first advocated by Villchur (1973). Since then, its effects on speech as well as its interactions with characteristics of impaired hearing have been controversial (Villchur, 1973(Villchur, , 1989Plomp, 1988). On the other hand, multiband compression systems with a small number of bands (two or three) can improve the ability to understand speech in a noisy environment (Laurence et al, 1983;Moore, 1987;, 1988Moore et al, 1985Moore et al, , 1991Moore et al, , 1992Ringdahl et al, 1990).…”

Section: Previous Work With Compressionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Clinical Evaluation of a Portable Digital Hearing Aid with Narrow-band Loudness Compensation

Hidaka¹,

Kawase²,

Takahashi³

et al. 1998

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new portable digital hearing aid referred to as CLAIDHA (Compensate for Loudness by Analyzing Input-signal Digital Hearing Aid), which employs frequency-dependent amplitude compression based on narrow-band loudness compensation, was clinically evaluated in 159 subjects with hearing loss. The results of speech tests revealed better intelligibility compared with the subject's own hearing aids; the advantage of using CLAIDHA in daily life was also indicated by the results of a questionnaire completed by the subjects. In about 64% of the subjects with a flat, gradually sloping type of hearing loss, CLAIDHA was satisfactorily adopted for daily use. However, in the subjects with a steeply sloping type of hearing loss and subjects with losses mainly at high and low frequencies, with near-normal mid-frequency hearing. this loudness compensation scheme seems to be slightly less effective.

show abstract

Section: Previous Work With Compressionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Clinical Evaluation of a Portable Digital Hearing Aid with Narrow-band Loudness Compensation

Hidaka¹,

Kawase²,

Takahashi³

et al. 1998

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, greater masking release might be expected to occur with WDRC than with linear amplification. On the other hand, improved audibility may (Plomp, 1988) or may not (Villchur, 1989) be offset by increased temporal distortion or comodulation of speech with the masker, especially when the masker is competing speech (Stone & Moore, 2007, 2008, resulting in similar or even less masking release.…”

Section: Hearing Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the extent that random amplitude fluctuations in the masker impede speech understanding, fast WDRC might improve masking release by minimizing these envelope fluctuations (Glasberg & Moore, 1992;Stone & Moore, 1992). Again, this benefit could come at a cost of increased distortion of speech with fast WDRC (Plomp, 1988; but see Villchur, 1989). Alexander and Masterson (2015) examined the influence of the number of compression channels and of slow and fast release times for WDRC on the perception of speech in unmodulated noise and modulated noise for adults with hearing loss.…”

Section: Compression Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masking Release in Children and Adults With Hearing Loss When Using Amplification

Brennan

McCreery

Kopun

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study compared masking release for adults and children with normal hearing and hearing loss. For the participants with hearing loss, masking release using simulated hearing aid amplification with 2 different compression speeds (slow, fast) was compared. Method Sentence recognition in unmodulated noise was compared with recognition in modulated noise (masking release). Recognition was measured for participants with hearing loss using individualized amplification via the hearing-aid simulator. Results Adults with hearing loss showed greater masking release than the children with hearing loss. Average masking release was small (1 dB) and did not depend on hearing status. Masking release was comparable for slow and fast compression. Conclusions The use of amplification in this study contrasts with previous studies that did not use amplification. The results suggest that when differences in audibility are reduced, participants with hearing loss may be able to take advantage of dips in the noise levels, similar to participants with normal hearing. Although children required a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio than adults for both unmodulated and modulated noise, masking release was not statistically different. However, the ability to detect a difference may have been limited by the small amount of masking release observed.

show abstract

“…Some (e.g., Plomp, 1988) have argued that compression in general may be detrimental to speech intelligibility due to its effect on the modulation spectrum as quantified by the speech transmission index (STI). Others (Noordhoek & Drullman, 1997;Villchur, 1989) have argued that the reduction in intelligibility in noise can not be attributed to the reductions in envelope modulations alone but may occur because the weaker elements of speech are masked. Villchur (1973) showed that the weak elements of speech can be preserved to some degree with two-band compression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Use of S-Shaped Input-Output Functions for Noise Suppression in Cochlear Implants

Kasturi

Loizou

2007

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These results clearly indicate that the shape of the nonlinear acoustic-to-electric mapping can have a significant effect on speech intelligibility in noise when it is optimized to individual cochlear implant users. The log functions currently used in most implant processors for mapping acoustic to electric amplitudes are not the best mapping functions to use in noisy environments. This is largely because compressive functions tend to amplify low-level segments of speech along with noise, thereby decreasing the spectral contrast and effective dynamic range. In contrast, the s-shaped mapping functions, which are partly compressive and partly expansive depending on the signal level, are more suitable for noisy environments and can produce significantly higher performance than the log-mapping functions.

show abstract

Comments on ‘‘The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function’’ [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 8 3, 2322–2327 (1988)]

Abstract: According to Plomp [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 2322–2327 (1988)], fast multichannel amplitude compression has a predictably negative effect on speech intelligibility for both normal and impaired listeners. The following letter is a response to that conclusion.

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Clinical Evaluation of a Portable Digital Hearing Aid with Narrow-band Loudness Compensation

Clinical Evaluation of a Portable Digital Hearing Aid with Narrow-band Loudness Compensation

Masking Release in Children and Adults With Hearing Loss When Using Amplification

Use of S-Shaped Input-Output Functions for Noise Suppression in Cochlear Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About