title: Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids.
abstract: Four different compression algorithms were implemented in wearable digital hearing aids: (1) The slow-acting dual-front-end automatic gain control (AGC) system [B. C. J. Moore, B. R. Glasberg, and M. A. Stone, Br. J. Audiol. 25, 171-182 (1991)], combined with appropriate frequency response equalization, with a compression threshold of 63 dB sound pressure level (SPL) and with a compression ratio of 30 (DUAL-HI); (2) The dual-front-end AGC system combined with appropriate frequency response equalization, with a compression threshold of 55 dB SPL and with a compression ratio of 3 (DUAL-LO). This was intended to give some impression of the levels of sounds in the environment; (3) Fast-acting full dynamic range compression in four channels (FULL-4). The compression was designed to minimize envelope distortion due to overshoots and undershoots; (4) A combination of (2) and (3) above, where each applied less compression than when used alone (DUAL-4). Initial fitting was partly based on the concept of giving a flat specific-loudness pattern for a 65-dB SPL speech-shaped noise input, and this was followed by fine tuning using an adaptive procedure with speech stimuli. Eight subjects with moderate to severe cochlear hearing loss were tested in a counter-balanced design. Subjects had at least 2 weeks experience with each system in everyday life before evaluation using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) test and measures of speech intelligibility in quiet (AB word lists at 50 and 80 dB SPL) and noise (adoptive sentence lists in speech-shaped noise, or that same noise amplitude modulated with the envelope of speech from a single talker). The APHAB scores did not indicate clear differences between the four systems. Scores for the AB words in quiet were high for all four systems at both 50 and 80 dB SPL. The speech-to-noise ratios required for 50% intelligibility were low (indicating good performance) and similar for all the systems, but there was a slight trend for better performance in modulated noise with the DUAL-4 system than with the other systems. A subsequent trial where three subjects directly compared each of the four systems in their everyday lives indicated a slight preference for the DUAL-LO system. Overall, the results suggest that it is not necessary to compress fast modulations of the input signal.
authors.affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, England.
authors.forename: M A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Stone
authors.forename: B C
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Moore
authors.forename: J I
authors.initials: JI
authors.lastname: Alcántara
authors.forename: B R
authors.initials: BR
authors.lastname: Glasberg
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000295:instrumentation; D000465:Algorithms; D004867:Equipment Design; D006310:Hearing Aids; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000534:rehabilitation; D006801:Humans; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D013067:Speech Perception / Q000502:physiology