scholarly journals Evaluation of binaurally-synchronized dynamic-range compression algorithms for hearing aids

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Ernst ◽  
Giso Grimm ◽  
Birger Kollmeier
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Compression Algorithms ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression

A 1-Channel 3-Band Wide Dynamic Range Compression Chip for Vibration Transducer of Implantable Hearing Aids

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1009-1017 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongWook Kim ◽  
KiWoong Seong ◽  
MyoungNam Kim ◽  
JinHo Cho ◽  
JyungHyun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Vibration Transducer ◽  
Implantable Hearing Aids

scholarly journals Principles of Digital Dynamic-Range Compression

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Kates
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Perception ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Side Branch ◽  
Frequency Resolution ◽  
Compression Behavior ◽  
Digital Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Digital Compression ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid

This article provides an overview of dynamic-range compression in digital hearing aids. Digital technology is becoming increasingly common in hearing aids, particularly because of the processing flexibility it offers and the opportunity to create more-effective devices. The focus of the paper is on the algorithms used to build digital compression systems. Of the various approaches that can be used to design a digital hearing aid, this paper considers broadband compression, multi-channel filter banks, a frequency-domain compressor using the FFT, the side-branch design that separates the filtering operation from the frequency analysis, and the frequency-warped version of the side-branch approach that modifies the analysis frequency spacing to more closely match auditory perception. Examples of the compressor frequency resolution, group delay, and compression behavior are provided for the different design approaches.

Fitting Wide Dynamic Range Compression Hearing Aids

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Lindley ◽  
Catherine V. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression

scholarly journals Intelligibility and Clarity of Reverberant Speech: Effects of Wide Dynamic Range Compression Release Time and Working Memory

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1543-1554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul N. Reinhart ◽  
Pamela E. Souza
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Release Times ◽  
Memory Group ◽  
Reverberant Speech

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of varying wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) release time on intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech. The study also considered the role of individual working memory. Method Thirty older listeners with mild to moderately-severe sloping sensorineural hearing loss participated. Individuals were divided into high and low working memory groups on the basis of the results of a reading span test. Participants listened binaurally to sentence stimuli simulated at a range of reverberation conditions and WDRC release times using a high compression ratio. Outcome measures included objective intelligibility and subjective clarity ratings. Results Speech intelligibility and clarity ratings both decreased as a function of reverberation. The low working memory group demonstrated a greater decrease in intelligibility with increasing amounts of reverberation than the high working memory group. Both groups, regardless of working memory, had higher speech intelligibility and clarity ratings with longer WDRC release times. WDRC release time had a larger effect on speech intelligibility under more reverberant conditions. Conclusions Reverberation significantly affects speech intelligibility, particularly for individuals with lower working memory. In addition, longer release times in hearing aids may improve listener speech intelligibility and clarity in reverberant environments.

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing Strategies on Consonant Recognition

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Plyler ◽  
Mark Hedrick ◽  
Brittany Rinehart ◽  
Rebekah Tripp
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Previous Experience ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Subjective Preference

Background: Both wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree (CF) processing strategies in hearing aids were designed to improve listener comfort and consonant identification, yet few studies have actually compared them. Purpose: To determine whether CF processing provides equal or better consonant identification and subjective preference than WDRC. Research Design: A repeated-measures randomized design was used in which each participant identified consonants from prerecorded nonsense vowel–consonant–vowel syllables in three conditions: unaided, aided using CF processing, and aided using WDRC processing. For each of the three conditions, syllables were presented in quiet and in a speech-noise background. Participants were also asked to rate the two processing schemes according to overall preference, preference in quiet and noise, and sound quality. Study Sample: Twenty adults (seven females; mean age 69.7 yr) with ≥1 yr of hearing aid use participated. Ten participants had previous experience wearing aids with WDRC, and 10 had previous experience with CF processing. Participants were tested with both WDRC and CF processing. Data Collection and Analysis: Number of consonants correct were measured and used as the dependent variable in analyses of variance with subsequent post hoc testing. For subjective preference, a listener rating form was employed with subsequent χ2 analysis. Results: Overall results showed that signal-processing strategy did not significantly affect consonant identification or subjective preference, nor did previous hearing aid use influence results. Listeners with audiometric slopes exceeding 11 dB per octave, however, preferred CF processing and performed better in noise with CF processing. Conclusion: CF processing is a viable alternative to WDRC for listeners with more severely sloping audiometric contours.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document