Impact of Amplitude Compression Settings of Hearing Aid on Acceptable Noise Level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2311-1917.2020.08.03Keywords:
Hearing Aid, Hearing Loss, Acceptable Noise Level (ANL), Amplitude Compression, Syllabic/Dual Acting Compression.Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of various wide dynamic range compressions (WDRCs) on the acceptable noise level (ANL).
Design: The ANL under various conditions of amplitude compression times and compression ratios (CRs) was assessed. The CR numbers were 1, 2, 4, and 8. Both linear and nonlinear (syllabic and dual) amplifications were tested.
Study Sample: 32 male subjects (aged 51.5 ± 6.0 years) enrolled in this study had moderate sensorineural hearing loss.
Results: There were significant differences between the linear amplification and syllabic acting compression conditions as well as between syllabic and dual acting compression conditions. The ANL for syllabic acting compression was higher than that for both linear amplification and dual acting compression. The lowest and highest ANLs were observed for the linear amplification and 8-CRs syllabic WDRC, respectively. The ANL was increased when the number of different CRs in both syllabic and dual acting compressions was increased.
Conclusions: Aggressive WDRC increases ANL and this is probably because of the effects of smearing noise, which is in turn the result of the aggressive amplitude compression.
References
Dillon H. Hearing Aids. 2 ed. Australia: Thieme 2012.
Naylor G, Johannesson RB. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 2009; 20(3): 161-71. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.20.3.2
Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1991; 34(3): 679-85. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3403.679
Wu YH, Stangl E. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction. Ear and Hearing 2013; 34(3): 333-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827417d4
Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings-1. Patterns of benefit. International Journal of Audiology 2006; 45(3): 130-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020500429518
Herbig R. XCEL Amp: optimizing compression to deliver audibility and listening comfort. In: Publications. SA, editor. Nuremburg, Erlangen 2012.
Ahmadi A, Fatahi J, Keshani A, Jalilvand H, Modarresi Y, Jalaie. Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2015; 4(4): 109-17.
Hagerman B, Olofsson Å. A Method to Measure the Effect of Noise Reduction Algorithms Using Simultaneous Speech and Noise. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2004; 90(2): 356- 61.
Franklin C, Johnson LV, White L, Franklin C, Smith-Olinde L. The Relationship between Personality Type and Acceptable Noise Levels: A Pilot Study. ISRN Otolaryngology 2013; 2013: 902532. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902532
