Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 170-180
DOI: 10.1055/a-1678-3381
Research Article

Influence of Audibility and Distortion on Recognition of Reverberant Speech for Children and Adults with Hearing Aid Amplification

Marc A. Brennan
1   Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
,
Ryan W. McCreery
2   Center for Hearing Research, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
,
John Massey
3   Florida Ear and Sinus Center, Silverstein Institute, Sarasota, Florida
› Author Affiliations Funding Portions of this work were funded by the Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Biomedical Research Development Fund (principal investigator Marc A. Brennan), NIDCD grants T35 DC008757 (Boys Town National Research Hospital), P30 DC4662 (Boys Town National Research Hospital), P20 GM109023 (principal investigator Marc A. Brennan), R01 DC013591 (principal investigator Ryan W. McCreery).
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Adults and children with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) have trouble understanding speech in rooms with reverberation when using hearing aid amplification. While the use of amplitude compression signal processing in hearing aids may contribute to this difficulty, there is conflicting evidence on the effects of amplitude compression settings on speech recognition. Less clear is the effect of a fast release time for adults and children with SNHL when using compression ratios derived from a prescriptive procedure.

Purpose The aim of the study is to determine whether release time impacts speech recognition in reverberation for children and adults with SNHL and to determine if these effects of release time and reverberation can be predicted using indices of audibility or temporal and spectral distortion.

Research Design This is a quasi-experimental cohort study. Participants used a hearing aid simulator set to the Desired Sensation Level algorithm m[i/o] for three different amplitude compression release times. Reverberation was simulated using three different reverberation times.

Participants Participants were 20 children and 16 adults with SNHL.

Data Collection and Analyses Participants were seated in a sound-attenuating booth and then nonsense syllable recognition was measured. Predictions of speech recognition were made using indices of audibility, temporal distortion, and spectral distortion and the effects of release time and reverberation were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results While nonsense syllable recognition decreased in reverberation release time did not significantly affect nonsense syllable recognition. Participants with lower audibility were more susceptible to the negative effect of reverberation on nonsense syllable recognition.

Conclusion We have extended previous work on the effects of reverberation on aided speech recognition to children with SNHL. Variations in release time did not impact the understanding of speech. An index of audibility best predicted nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation and, clinically, these results suggest that patients with less audibility are more susceptible to nonsense syllable recognition in reverberation.

Keywords

hearing loss - hearing aids - speech perception - adults and children

Authors' note

This work was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Auditory Society in March of 2018.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 14 September 2020

Accepted: 21 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 October 2021

Article published online:
10 October 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M. et al. Speech recognition and parent ratings from auditory development questionnaires in children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (Suppl. 01) 60S-75S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brennan M, McCreery R, Kopun J, Lewis D, Alexander J, Stelmachowicz P. Masking release in children and adults with hearing loss when using amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (01) 110-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wróblewski M, Lewis DE, Valente DL, Stelmachowicz PG. Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (06) 731-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 183-196
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wolters F, Smeds K, Schmidt E, Christensen EK, Norup C. Common sound scenarios: a context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 527-540
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smeds K, Gotowiec S, Wolters F, Herrlin P, Larsson J, Dahlquist M. Selecting scenarios for hearing-related laboratory testing. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 20S-30S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wagener KC, Hansen M, Ludvigsen C. Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (04) 348-370
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Lewis D, Brennan M. Auditory, cognitive, and linguistic factors predict speech recognition in adverse listening conditions for children with hearing loss. Front Neurosci 2019; 13: 1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Crukley J, Scollie S, Parsa V. An exploration of non-quiet listening at school. J Educ Audiol 2011; 17: 23-35
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Culling JF. Speech intelligibility in virtual restaurants. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (04) 2418-2426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Quartieri J, D'Ambrosio S, Guarnaccia C, Iannone G. Experiments in room acoustics: modelling of a church sound field and reverberation time measurements. WSEAS Trans Signal Process 2009; 5: 126-135
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Brennan M, Souza P. Effects of expansion on consonant recognition and consonant audibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (02) 119-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kates JM. Understanding compression: modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (06) 395-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Syllabic compression: effective compression ratios for signals modulated at different rates. Br J Audiol 1992; 26 (06) 351-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bor S, Souza P, Wright R. Multichannel compression: Effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; Oct; 51 (05) 1315-1527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Reinhart P, Zahorik P, Souza PE. Effects of reverberation, background talker number, and compression release time on signal-to-noise ratio. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (01) EL130-EL135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Naylor G, Johannesson RB. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (03) 161-171
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alexander JM, Rallapalli V. Acoustic and perceptual effects of amplitude and frequency compression on high-frequency speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (02) 908-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Quantifying the effects of fast-acting compression on the envelope of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (03) 1654-1664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alexander JM, Masterson K. Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (02) e35-e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Boike KT, Souza PE. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (02) 456-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (05) 2903-2913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (03) 216-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (07) 441-459
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Salorio-Corbetto M, Baer T, Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Effect of the number of amplitude-compression channels and compression speed on speech recognition by listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2020; 147 (03) 1344-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rallapalli VH, Alexander JM. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition with variants of a multichannel adaptive dynamic range compression scheme. Int J Audiol 2019; 58 (10) 661-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Novick ML, Bentler RA, Dittberner A, Flamme GA. Effects of release time and directionality on unilateral and bilateral hearing aid fittings in complex sound fields. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (10) 534-544
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings—2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (03) 153-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McCreery RW, Venediktov RA, Coleman JJ, Leech HM. An evidence-based systematic review of amplitude compression in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (02) 269-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Moore BCJ, Peters RW, Stone MA. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (01) 400-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brennan MA, McCreery RW, Buss E, Jesteadt W. The influence of hearing aid gain on gap-detection thresholds for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 969-979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hall JW, Buss E, Grose JH, Roush PA. Effects of age and hearing impairment on the ability to benefit from temporal and spectral modulation. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (03) 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nittrouer S, Crowther CS, Miller ME. The relative weighting of acoustic properties in the perception of [s] + stop clusters by children and adults. Percept Psychophys 1998; 60 (01) 51-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Boothroyd A. Perception of speech pattern contrasts from auditory presentation of voice fundamental frequency. Ear Hear 1988; 9 (06) 313-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Marriage JE, Moore BCJ. New speech tests reveal benefit of wide-dynamic-range, fast-acting compression for consonant discrimination in children with moderate-to-profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (07) 418-425
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Marriage JE, Moore BCJ, Stone MA, Baer T. Effects of three amplification strategies on speech perception by children with severe and profound hearing loss. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (01) 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Liu H, Liu Y, Li Y. et al. Effect of adaptive compression and fast-acting WDRC strategies on sentence recognition in noise in mandarin-speaking pediatric hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (04) 273-278
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Houtgast T, Steeneken HJM. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 77: 1069-1077
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Reinhart PN, Souza PE, Srinivasan NK, Gallun FJ. Effects of reverberation and compression on consonant identification in individuals with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (02) 144-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Shi L-F, Doherty KA. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (05) 1328-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Reinhart PN, Souza PE. Intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech: effects of wide dynamic range compression release time and working memory. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (06) 1543-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Reinhart P, Zahorik P, Souza P. Effects of reverberation on the relation between compression speed and working memory for speech-in-noise perception. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1098-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (03) 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kates JM, Arehart KH. The hearing-aid speech perception index (HASPI). Speech Commun 2014; 65: 75-93
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Brennan M, Stecker GC. Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (05) 494-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 American National Standards Institute. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index (s3.5). New York, NY: ANSI; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Hagerman B, Olofsson Å.. A method to measure the effect of noise reduction algorithms using simultaneous speech and noise. Acta Acust United Acust 2004; 90: 356-361
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Souza PE, Turner CW. Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kates JM, Arehart KH, Anderson MC, Kumar Muralimanohar R, Harvey Jr LO. Using objective metrics to measure hearing aid performance. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1165-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Rasetshwane DM, Raybine DA, Kopun JG, Gorga MP, Neely ST. Influence of instantaneous compression on recognition of speech in noise with temporal dips. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (01) 16-30
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Muralimanohar RK, Kates JM, Arehart KH. Using envelope modulation to explain speech intelligibility in the presence of a single reflection. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141 (05) EL482-EL487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kates JM, Arehart KH. The hearing-aid speech perception index (HASPI) version 2. Speech Commun 2020; 131: 35-46
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 55 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Rockville, MD: ASHA; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 56 McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (06) 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 2002; 11 (02) 65-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bradley JS. Speech intelligibility studies in classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80 (03) 846-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Sato H, Bradley JS. Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (04) 2064-2077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Cox RM, Moore JN. Composite speech spectrum for hearing and gain prescriptions. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31 (01) 102-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 American National Standards Institute A.. American National Standard Specification for Octave-Band and Fractional-Octave-Band Analog and Digital Filters (ANSI s1.11–1986). New York, NY: ASA; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Richardson JTE. The use of Latin-square designs in educational and psychological research. Educ Res Rev 2018; 24: 84-97
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Oleson JJ, Brown GD, McCreery R. The evolution of statistical methods in speech, language, and hearing sciences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 498-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Walker EA, Redfern A, Oleson JJ. Linear mixed-model analysis to examine longitudinal trajectories in vocabulary depth and breadth in children who are hard of hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 525-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Xia J, Xu B, Pentony S, Xu J, Swaminathan J. Effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility in normal-hearing and aided hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143 (03) 1523-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Parthasarathy A, Bartlett EL, Kujawa SG. Age-related changes in neural coding of envelope cues: peripheral declines and central compensation. Neuroscience 2019; 407: 21-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport 2002; 13 (15) 1865-1870
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (41) 14156-14164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Bartha-Doering L, Deuster D, Giordano V, am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, Dobel C. A systematic review of the mismatch negativity as an index for auditory sensory memory: from basic research to clinical and developmental perspectives. Psychophysiology 2015; 52 (09) 1115-1130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Davies-Venn E, Nelson P, Souza P. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (01) 492-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Gifford RH, Bacon SP, Williams EJ. An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (04) 857-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG. et al. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 2000; 284 (14) 1806-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar