Faculty Bibliography

This paper includes an overview of the research on late-onset auditory deprivation, an evaluation of the evidence from retrospective and prospective studies, recommendations for future research, and a consideration of the theoretical and clinical implications of the research. The studies reviewed offer convincing evidence of the late-onset auditory deprivation effect both in groups of listeners and in substantial numbers of individual listeners included in the group studies. The effect appears to be reversible in some cases with the use of amplification in the previously unaided ear. This preliminary evidence supports the recommendation of binaural amplification for persons with bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. There is much that is still unknown about the deprivation effect and recovery from deprivation. Longitudinal prospective studies are needed to obtain a better understanding of the role of subject-related variables and amplification-related variables on the magnitude and time course of the deprivation effect. Behavioral and electrophysiologic measures of monaural and binaural performance using speech and nonspeech stimuli would also further our understanding of the mechanisms underlying late-onset auditory deprivation

The terminology used in studies documenting changes in auditory performance following fitting of hearing aids has been diverse. Definitions for the auditory deprivation effect and auditory acclimatization are offered as a first step in rationalization. Two statements summarize current knowledge concerning auditory deprivation effects and auditory acclimatization, as well as considering the potential implications for research, field trial and clinical practice applications. Potential areas for future research are identified

Paired-comparison judgments of quality were obtained from 20 hearing-impaired listeners for speech processed through simulated compression hearing aids varying in release time (60, 200, 1000 ms) at three different compression ratios (1.5, 2, 3:1) and for three different background noises (ventilation, apartment, cafeteria). Analysis revealed that the main effect of release time did not have a significant effect on perceived quality. The interaction between release time and noise type was found to be significant. While no significant difference in preference for release times was evident for the ventilation noise, the longer release times (200 and 1000 ms) were preferred for the higher level noises (apartment noise, cafeteria noise). Post hoc testing revealed that the mean preference scores for the 200- and 1000-ms release time were significantly greater than that of the 60-ms release time with the competing cafeteria noise (p < 0.05). Analysis of individual subject data revealed statistically significant preferences that differed from the group mean, suggesting that individualized fitting of this parameter of a compression hearing aid might be warranted

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present experiment was to determine the relationship between most comfortable listening level and preferred listening levels for linear and slow-acting compression hearing aids as a function of variations in speech and noise level. DESIGN: A digital hearing aid test system was used to simulate six hearing aids having compression ratios of 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10:1. Speech was presented in three different noises (vent, apartment, and cafeteria), with speech input level being varied (55, 70, 85 dB SPL). Subjects were 20 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss (half with a dynamic range < or = 30 dB and half with a dynamic range >30 dB). The boundaries of the most comfortable listening range were measured to estimate most comfortable listening level. Preferred listening level was measured by having subjects adjust the output of the hearing aid for satisfactory listening. RESULTS: On average, the deviation of preferred listening level from most comfortable loudness (MCL) was less than 5 dB. Dynamic range, noise type, and input level were all found to have small, but significant, effects on the deviation of preferred listening level from MCL. On average, subjects with a small dynamic range listened slightly below MCL, and subjects with a larger dynamic range listened slightly above MCL. For favorable signal-to-noise ratios, preferred listening levels were highest for high input levels and for conditions that resulted in high output levels before level adjustment. Although the pattern of average performance differed slightly at poorer signal-to-noise ratios, all preferred listening levels were close to MCL. CONCLUSIONS: The gain of a slow-acting compression hearing aid should place the output within 5 dB of MCL. The output for low and medium inputs should approximate MCL and the output for high input levels should be slightly above MCL. This pattern of gain may be obtained with mild compression ratios and a gain rule that places a speech input of 70 dB at MCL

Paired-comparison judgments of quality were obtained from 20 hearing-impaired listeners (half with a small dynamic range and half with a large dynamic range) for speech-in-noise (vent, apartment, and cafeteria) processed through a slow-acting compression hearing aid. Compression ratio was varied (1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10:1). Compression threshold, attack time, and release time were fixed. Sound quality judgments were significantly affected by compression ratio, noise, and dynamic range. Preference decreased with increasing compression ratio. The selection of compression ratio. The selection of compression ratios < or = 2:1 was significantly higher than of compression ratios > 3:1. Less compression (no compression or 1.5:1) was preferred with the highest level noise (cafeteria noise) than with the lower level noises (vent or apartment). In particular, the small dynamic range group preferred compression with the vent and apartment noises (noise below the compression threshold), but preferred a linear hearing aid with the cafeteria noise (above the compression threshold). The large dynamic range group showed a slightly greater preference for the linear hearing aid for all three noises

Four noise reduction methods for use in sensory aids for hearing impairment were evaluated. These include a two-microphone adaptive noise canceller, short-term Wiener filtering, a transformed spectrum subtraction technique, and sinusoidal modelling. The largest improvements in speech recognition were obtained with the two-microphone adaptive noise canceller in a moderately reverberant room. Significant improvements were also obtained for short-term Wiener filtering for some hearing-impaired subjects. The transformed spectrum-subtraction technique failed to improve performance as the front-end of a hearing aid, but yielded improvements in performance as a preprocessor for the Nucleus Cochlear Implant. Sinusoidal modelling resulted in significant improvements in signal-to-noise ratio, but without a corresponding improvement in speech intelligibility

In orthogonal polynomial compression, the short-term speech spectrum is first approximated by a family of orthogonal polynomials. The coefficients of each polynomial, which vary over time, are then adjusted in terms of their average value and range of variation. These adjustments can be used to compress (or expand) temporal variations in the average level, slope, and various forms of curvature of the short-term speech spectrum. The analysis and reconstruction of the short-term speech spectrum using orthogonal polynomials was implemented using a digital master hearing aid. This method of compression was evaluated on eight sensorineurally hearing-impaired listeners. Speech recognition scores were obtained for a range of compression conditions and input levels with and without frequency shaping. The results showed significant advantages over conventional linear amplification when temporal variations in the average level of the short-term spectrum were compressed, a result comparable to that obtained with conventional amplitude compression. A subset of the subjects showed further improvement when temporal variations in spectrum slope were compressed, but these subjects also showed similar improvements when frequency shaping was combined with level-only compression. None of the subjects showed improved speech recognition scores when variations in quadratic curvature were compressed in addition to level and slope compression

A two-microphone dereverberation technique was evaluated by obtaining speech recognition measures and preference judgments from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Monaural speech recognition performance was measured for two reverberation conditions (0.4 second and 1.2 seconds) with and without processing. Binaural speech recognition performance was also measured for the unprocessed conditions. In addition, paired-comparison judgments of preference were obtained for all combinations of the processed and unprocessed monaural stimuli. For both groups of subjects, scores at the shorter reverberation time were significantly higher than scores for the longer reverberation time. For the normal-hearing subjects, processing to dereverberate had no significant effect on speech recognition performance. Binaural presentation of the unprocessed signal yielded significantly higher scores. For the hearing-impaired subjects, performance was significantly better in the unprocessed condition than the processed condition, but was not significantly different from the binaural condition. Paired-comparison judgments revealed differences in patterns of preference between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Digital hearing aids offer many advantages over conventional hearing aids. These include signal-processing capabilities that are superior to those of a conventional analog hearing aid, methods of signal-processing and control that are unique to digital systems and which cannot be implemented in conventional analog hearing aids, and innovative new techniques that are changing our way of thinking about hearing aids. An example of the first of these advantages is the extremely high precision with which the frequency-gain characteristic can be specified and the use of this capability to study the effects of frequency response irregularities commonly encountered with hearing aids. An example of the second advantage is the use of memory and logical operations in the implementation of multivariate adaptive paired-comparison techniques for more effective hearing-aid prescription. Another example is the use of powerful new signal processing techniques for noise reduction. The third advantage is the most important. The digital hearing aid can be viewed as a generalized hearing instrument which can be used for simulation, testing and prescription, as well as amplification. The use of the digital hearing aid as a simulator of other hearing aids is discussed and an illustrative example provided in which a new form of amplitude compression, orthogonal-polynomial compression, has been simulated using a digital master hearing aid