Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes

Danielle Glista, Susan Scollie, Marlene Bagatto, Richard Seewald, Vijay Parsa, Andrew Johnson, Danielle Glista, Susan Scollie, Marlene Bagatto, Richard Seewald, Vijay Parsa, Andrew Johnson

Abstract

This study evaluated prototype multichannel nonlinear frequency compression (NFC) signal processing on listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. This signal processor applies NFC above a cut-off frequency. The participants were hearing-impaired adults (13) and children (11) with sloping, high-frequency hearing loss. Multiple outcome measures were repeated using a modified withdrawal design. These included speech sound detection, speech recognition, and self-reported preference measures. Group level results provide evidence of significant improvement of consonant and plural recognition when NFC was enabled. Vowel recognition did not change significantly. Analysis of individual results allowed for exploration of individual factors contributing to benefit received from NFC processing. Findings suggest that NFC processing can improve high frequency speech detection and speech recognition ability for adult and child listeners. Variability in individual outcomes related to factors such as degree and configuration of hearing loss, age of participant, and type of outcome measure.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean better ear pure-tone thresholds ±1 standard deviation for adults and children.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean speech sound detection thresholds for adults and children combined, plotted in dB HL for CP (conventional processing) and NFC (nonlinear frequency compression) study phases.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean speech recognition scores for adults and children combined, plotted in RAU for CP (conventional processing) and NFC (nonlinear frequency compression) study phases. Statistical significance based on post-hoc analysis at the level of p

Figure 4

Individual speech sound detection thresholds…

Figure 4

Individual speech sound detection thresholds plotted as difference scores, with a negative score…

Figure 4
Individual speech sound detection thresholds plotted as difference scores, with a negative score indicating improvement with CP (conventional processing) and a positive score indicating improvement with NFC (nonlinear frequency compression). Results displayed in the top and bottom panes represent the adult and child participants respectively, with participants arranged in order of increasing hearing loss. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

Figure 5

Individual speech recognition results for…

Figure 5

Individual speech recognition results for the adult participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and…

Figure 5
Individual speech recognition results for the adult participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for…

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and…

Figure 6
Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Refer to legend on Figure 5. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Auriemmo J., Kuk F., Stenger P. Criteria for evaluating the performance of linear frequency transposition in children. Hear J. 2008;61:50–54.
    1. Bagatto M., Moodie S., Scollie S., Seewald R., Moodie S.K., et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends in Amplif. 2005;9(4):199–226. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beasley D., Mosher N., Orchik D. Use of frequency-shifted/time-compressed speech with hearing-impaired children. Audiology. 1976;15:395–406. - PubMed
    1. Bennett D., Byers V. Increased intelligibility in the hypacusis by slow-play frequency transposition. J Aud Res. 1967;7:107–118.
    1. Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Johnson T.A., Flamme G.A. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2003;24(3):215–224. - PubMed
Show all 53 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Follow NCBI
Figure 4
Figure 4
Individual speech sound detection thresholds plotted as difference scores, with a negative score indicating improvement with CP (conventional processing) and a positive score indicating improvement with NFC (nonlinear frequency compression). Results displayed in the top and bottom panes represent the adult and child participants respectively, with participants arranged in order of increasing hearing loss. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

Figure 5

Individual speech recognition results for…

Figure 5

Individual speech recognition results for the adult participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and…

Figure 5
Individual speech recognition results for the adult participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for…

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and…

Figure 6
Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Refer to legend on Figure 5. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Auriemmo J., Kuk F., Stenger P. Criteria for evaluating the performance of linear frequency transposition in children. Hear J. 2008;61:50–54.
    1. Bagatto M., Moodie S., Scollie S., Seewald R., Moodie S.K., et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends in Amplif. 2005;9(4):199–226. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beasley D., Mosher N., Orchik D. Use of frequency-shifted/time-compressed speech with hearing-impaired children. Audiology. 1976;15:395–406. - PubMed
    1. Bennett D., Byers V. Increased intelligibility in the hypacusis by slow-play frequency transposition. J Aud Res. 1967;7:107–118.
    1. Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Johnson T.A., Flamme G.A. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2003;24(3):215–224. - PubMed
Show all 53 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Follow NCBI
Figure 5
Figure 5
Individual speech recognition results for the adult participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for…

Figure 6

Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and…

Figure 6
Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Refer to legend on Figure 5. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Auriemmo J., Kuk F., Stenger P. Criteria for evaluating the performance of linear frequency transposition in children. Hear J. 2008;61:50–54.
    1. Bagatto M., Moodie S., Scollie S., Seewald R., Moodie S.K., et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends in Amplif. 2005;9(4):199–226. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beasley D., Mosher N., Orchik D. Use of frequency-shifted/time-compressed speech with hearing-impaired children. Audiology. 1976;15:395–406. - PubMed
    1. Bennett D., Byers V. Increased intelligibility in the hypacusis by slow-play frequency transposition. J Aud Res. 1967;7:107–118.
    1. Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Johnson T.A., Flamme G.A. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2003;24(3):215–224. - PubMed
Show all 53 references
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 6
Figure 6
Individual speech recognition results for the child participants, plotted for treatment (NFC) and treatment withdrawal (CP) study phases. Refer to legend on Figure 5. Results are displayed from left to right in order of increasing hearing loss determined by better-ear, high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA). Speech recognition scores have been displayed in RAU. Statistical significance is shown by asterisk symbols: *p

References

    1. Auriemmo J., Kuk F., Stenger P. Criteria for evaluating the performance of linear frequency transposition in children. Hear J. 2008;61:50–54.
    1. Bagatto M., Moodie S., Scollie S., Seewald R., Moodie S.K., et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends in Amplif. 2005;9(4):199–226.
    1. Beasley D., Mosher N., Orchik D. Use of frequency-shifted/time-compressed speech with hearing-impaired children. Audiology. 1976;15:395–406.
    1. Bennett D., Byers V. Increased intelligibility in the hypacusis by slow-play frequency transposition. J Aud Res. 1967;7:107–118.
    1. Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Johnson T.A., Flamme G.A. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2003;24(3):215–224.
    1. Boothroyd A., Medwetsky L. Spectral distribution of /s/ and the frequency response of hearing aids. Ear Hear. 1992;13(3):150–157.
    1. Cheesman M.F., Jamieson D. G. Development, evaluation, and scoring of a nonsense word test suitable for use with speakers of Canadian English. Canadian Acoustics. 1996;24(1):3–11.
    1. Ching T.Y., Dillon H., Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;103(2):1128–1140.
    1. Ching T.Y., Dillon H., Katsch R., Byrne D. Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear. 2001;22(3):212–224.
    1. Crandell C.C., Smaldino J.J. Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000;31:362–370.
    1. Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elderling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings: 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:130–152.
    1. Gatehouse S., Naylor G., Elderling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings: 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:153–171.
    1. Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992;92(3):1258–1269.
    1. Hicks C.B., Tharpe A.M. Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 2002;45:573–584.
    1. Hillenbrand J., Getty L.A., Clark M.J., Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97(5):1–13.
    1. Hogan C.A., Turner C.W. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104(1):432–441.
    1. Horwitz A.R., Turner C.W. The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1997;18(1):1–11.
    1. Humes L.E., Christopherson L. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: The contributions of auditory processing deficits. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34:686–693.
    1. Humes L.E., Watson B.U., Christersen L.A., Cokely C.G., Halling D.C., et al. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37:465–474.
    1. Johansson B. A new coding amplifier system for the severely hard of hearing. In: Cremer L., editor. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Acoustics; 1961. pp. 655–657.
    1. Johansson B. The use of the transposer for the management of the deaf child. International Audiology. 1966;V(3):362–372.
    1. Kuk F., Korhonen P., Peeters H., Keenen D., Jessen A., et al. Linear frequency transposition: Extending the audibility of high-frequency energy. Hear Rev. 2006;13:10.
    1. Kuk F., Potts L., Valente M., Lee L., Picirrillo J. Evidence of acclimatization in persons with severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003;14(2)
    1. Ling D, editor. Foundations of Spoken Language for Hearing-impaired Children. Washington DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc; 1989.
    1. Ling D., Druz W.S. Transposition of high frequency sounds by partial vocoding of the speech spectrum: Its use by deaf children. J Aud Res. 1967;7:133–144.
    1. MacArdle B.M., West C., Bradley J., Worth S., Mackenzie J., et al. A study of the application of a frequency transposition hearing system in children. Br J Audiol. 2001;35:17–29.
    1. Mackersie C.L., Crocker T.L., Davis R. Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15:498–507.
    1. McDermott H.J., Knight M.R. Preliminary results with the AVR ImpaCt frequency-transposing hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(3):121–127.
    1. Miller-Hansen D.R., Nelson P.G., Widen J.E., Simon S.D. Evaluating the benefit of speech recoding hearing aids in children. Am J Audiol. 2003;12:106–113.
    1. Moeller M.P., Hoover B., Putman C., Arbataitis K., Bohnenkamp G., et al. Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing: Part I. Phonetic development. Ear Hear. 2007;28(5):605–627.
    1. Moore B.C., Glasberg B.R., Stone M.A. New version of the TEN test with calibration in dB HL. Ear Hear. 2004;25(5):478–487.
    1. Munro K.J., Lutman M.E. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114(1):484–495.
    1. Newman R.S. Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: A preliminary report. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113(5):2850–2860.
    1. Olsen W.O. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: A summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol. 1998;7:1–5.
    1. Parent T.C., Chmiel R., Jerger J. Comparison of performance with frequency transposition hearing aids and conventional hearing aids. Am J Audiol. 1997;8(5):355–365.
    1. Pittman A.L. Short-term word-learning rate in children with normal hearing and children with hearing loss in limited and extended high-frequency bandwidths. J Speech Hear Res. 2008;51(3):785–797.
    1. Pittman A.L., Stelmachowicz P.G. Perception of voiceless fricatives by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Speech Hear Res. 2000;43:1389–1401.
    1. Pittman A.L., Stelmachowicz P.G., Lewis D.E., Hoover B.M. Spectral characteristics of speech at the ear: Implications for amplification in children. J Speech Hear Res. 2003;46(3):649–657.
    1. Plyler P.N., Fleck E.L. The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 2006;49(3):616–627.
    1. Portney L.G., Watkins M.P, editors. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
    1. Raffin M.J., Thornton A.R. Confidence levels for differences between speech-discrimination scores: A research note. J Speech Hear Res. 1980;23(1):5–18.
    1. Robinson J., Baer T., Moore B.C.J. Using transposition to improve consonant discrimination and detection for listeners with severe high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2007;46:293–308.
    1. Scollie S., Seewald R., Cornelisse L., Moodie S., Bagatto M.P., et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amplif. 2005;9(4):159–197.
    1. Simpson A., Hersbach A.A., McDermott H.J. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. Int J Audiol. 2005;44:281–292.
    1. Simpson A., Hersbach A.A., McDermott H.J. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. Int J Audiol. 2006;45:619–629.
    1. Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M., Lewis D.E. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal and hearing-impaired children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(4):2183–2190.
    1. Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M., Lewis D.E. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear. 2002;23(4):316–324.
    1. Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M., Lewis D.E., Moeller M.P. The importance of high-frequency audibility in the speech and language development of children with hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):556–562.
    1. Studebaker G.A., McDaniel D.M., Sherbecoe R.L. Evaluating relative speech recognition performance using proficiency factor and rationalized arcsine differences. J Am Acad Audiol. 1995;6(2):173–182.
    1. Tenhaaf J.J., Scollie S.D. Normative threshold levels for a calibrated, computer-assisted version of the Ling six-sound test. Canadian Acoustics. 2005
    1. Turner C.W., Henry B. Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112:1675–1680.
    1. Turner C.W., Hurtig R.R. Proportional frequency compression of speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(2):877–886.
    1. Vickers D.A., Moore B.C., Baer T. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;110(2):1164–1175.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera