Comparison of the Effects of One and Two Knee Points in Compression Systems on the Score of the ANL Test in People with Sensory Neural Hearing Loss

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 MSc Student in Audiology, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc in Audiology, Lecturer Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD in Audiology, Assistant Professor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 MSc in Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim:
One of the main purposes of hearing aid fitting for a patient with sensorineural hearing loss is to improve speech intelligibility in noise. Many parameters can influence this goal among which is compression. Compression systems typically compress the amplitude of sounds in order to improve speech intelligibility. One of the factors which determine the function of compression is its knee point. The present study was carried out to comprehensively investigate the effects of using one knee point compared to two knee points in compression systems on the score of the Acceptable Noise Level test in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss.
Materials and Methods: A total of 15 patients suffering from sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study. All participants were fitted with Siemens Motion P 3mi hearing aids. The Most Comfortable Level and the Background Noise Level were measured and the Acceptable Noise Level was tested in three conditions, i.e. unreinforced, reinforced with one knee point, and with two knee point. Time constants (fast) and channel numbers (N=6) remained fixed.
Results: The results of the present study showed that there was not any significant differences between the reinforced with one knee and two knee points conditions and the unreinforced and mean acceptance level of noise in reinforced conditions. No significant association was found between mean ANL and the average of hearing thresholds in unreinforced and reinforced conditions with one and two knee points.
Conclusion: According to the findings, it was not possible to determine the Acceptable Noise Level based only on the measured hearing thresholds. Also, increasing the number of knee points from one to two had no major effects on the score of the Acceptable Noise Level test, and one knee point might be enough to understand Speech in noise. Therefore, it seems that there is no need to increase the number of knee points in the compression systems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V:" Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": The consumers' perspective. The Hearing Journal. 2000;53(2):34-6.##
  2. Kochkin S. " Baby Boomers" spur growth in potential market, but penetration rate declines. The Hearing Journal. 1999;52(1):33-4. ##
  3. A G. Phoneme Compression: processing of the speech signal and effects on speech intelligibility in hearing-Impaired listeners: Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam. 2005. ##
  4. PE S. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends in Amplification. 2002;6(4):131-65. ##
  5. Lippmann R, Braida L, Durlach N. Study of multichannel amplitude compression and linear amplification for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1981;69(2):524-34. ##
  6. Villchur E. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1973;53(6):1646-57##.
  7. Barfod J. Multichannel compression hearing aids: experiments and consideration on clinical applicability. Scandinavian audiology Supplementum. 1977(6):315-40. ##
  8. Moore BC, Glasberg BR. A Comparison of Two-Channel and Single-Channel Compression Hearing Aids: Comparaison de prothèses acoustiques avec compression à un et deux canaux. International Journal of Audiology. 1986;25(4-5):210-26##.
  9. Moore BC, Laurence RF, Wright D. Improvements in speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise produced by two-channel compression hearing aids. British journal of audiology. 1985;19(3):175-87. ##
  10. Yanick P, Drucker H. Signal processing to improve intelligibility in the presence of noice for persons with a ski-slope hearing impairment. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on. 1976;24(6):507-12. ##
  11. Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation‐transfer function. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1988;83(6):2322-7. ##
  12. Barker C, Dillon H. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. Ear and hearing. 1999;20(2):127-39. ##
  13. Ricketts T, Lindley G, Henry P. Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance. Ear and hearing. 2001;22(4):348-61. ##
  14. Dillon H. Hearing Aids. second ed ed2012. 176 p. ##
  15. Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of Background NoisesRelationship With Patterns of Hearing Aid Use by Elderly Persons. Journal of Speech, Language, and HearingResearch. 1991;34(3):679-85##.
  16. Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2006;17(9):626-39. ##
  17. Dillon H. Hearing aids. New York2012. ##
  18. Dillon H. Hearing Aids. second ed2012. 297,8,423,4,5 p. ##
  19. Mosleh M. Development and Evaluation of Speech Recognition Test for Persian Speaking Adults. Audiology. 1999-2000 [In persian] ##
  20. Kolb B, Whishaw IQ. Fundamentals of human neuropsychology: Macmillan; 2009. ##
  21. J GLG. Cognition: Methods and Processes. In G. L. Grieve J., Neuropsychology for Occupational Therapists: Cognition in Occupational Performance. third ed2008. 77 p##.
  22. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9(1):97-113##.
  23. Cite this article as:Amir Ahmadi, Jamileh Fatahi, Ahmad keshani, Hamid Jalilvand, yahya Modarresi, Shohreh Jalaie.Developing and  evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. J Rehab Med. 2015; 4(2): 109-117 [In Persian] ##
  24. Nabelek AK TF, Letowski TR. Toleration of Background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly person. Journal of speech and hearing research. 1991;85.-34:679. ##
  25. Freyaldenhoven MC, Plyler PN, Thelin JW, Hedrick MS. The effects of speech presentationlevel on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2007;50(4):878-85. ##
  26. Ahmadi A, Fatahi؛ J, keshani A, Jalilvand H, Modarresi y, Jalaie S. Developing and evaluating the reliability of acceptable noise level test in Persian language. Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2015(4(2)):109-17 [In Persian]. ##
  27. Crowley HJ. Unaided factors predicting client-assessed hearing aid performance, usage and satisfaction. 1994. ##
  28. Brännström KJ, Olsen SØ. The Acceptable Noise Level and the Pure-Tone Audiogram. American Journal of Audiology.1-8. ##
  29. Taylor B. Audiologic Predictors of Real-World Hearing Aid Success: An Evidence-Based ReviewAudiologyOnlinecom. 2008. ##
  30. Jalilvand H. Assessment of the effects of amplification and signal processing algorithms on speech in noise perception in subjects with the moderate sensory neural hearing loss 2015. ##
  31. Wu Y-H, Stangl E. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: perception and prediction. Ear and hearing. 2013;34(3):333-41. ##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 8, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
April 2019
Pages 199-207

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 February 2017
  • Revise Date: 21 April 2017
  • Accept Date: 25 August 2018
  • First Publish Date: 21 March 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics