The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments

Patrick Plyler, Kristy J. Lowery, Hilary M. Hamby, Timothy D. Trine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The effects of multichannel expansion on the objective and subjective evaluation of 20 listeners fitted binaurally with 4-channel, digital in-the-ear hearing instruments were investigated. Method: Objective evaluations were conducted in quiet using the Connected Speech Test (CST) and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) at 40, 50, and 60 dB SPL. Subjective evaluations were conducted by having each participant (a) rate their satisfaction regarding the amount of noise reduction they perceived daily and (b) indicate which expansion condition they preferred overall after a 2-week trial. Three expansion settings were programmed into the hearing aids: 4-channel expansion, expansion restricted to Channels 1 and 2 only, and expansion off. Results: Listeners performed significantly better in quiet (CST) and in noise (HINT) for the off condition than for either multichannel condition; however, restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 improved objective performance in quiet and in noise relative to the 4-channel condition. Conversely, satisfaction ratings were significantly greater for both multichannel conditions than for the off condition; however, satisfaction ratings were similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Overall, listeners preferred any form of multichannel expansion to no expansion; however, overall preference was similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Conclusions: Hearing instrument users prefer the use of multichannel expansion despite the fact multichannel expansion may significantly reduce the recognition of low-level speech in quiet and in noise. Although restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 (i.e., 2000 Hz and below) maintained subjective benefit for wide dynamic range compression hearing instrument users, the recognition of low-level speech was not completely preserved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-24
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2007

Fingerprint

Hearing
Noise
evaluation
listener
rating
Hearing Aids
Evaluation
Compression
Ear
performance

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments. / Plyler, Patrick; Lowery, Kristy J.; Hamby, Hilary M.; Trine, Timothy D.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 50, No. 1, 01.02.2007, p. 15-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d5cc28b53c744bce8d46a326aa1630fc,
title = "The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments",
abstract = "Purpose: The effects of multichannel expansion on the objective and subjective evaluation of 20 listeners fitted binaurally with 4-channel, digital in-the-ear hearing instruments were investigated. Method: Objective evaluations were conducted in quiet using the Connected Speech Test (CST) and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) at 40, 50, and 60 dB SPL. Subjective evaluations were conducted by having each participant (a) rate their satisfaction regarding the amount of noise reduction they perceived daily and (b) indicate which expansion condition they preferred overall after a 2-week trial. Three expansion settings were programmed into the hearing aids: 4-channel expansion, expansion restricted to Channels 1 and 2 only, and expansion off. Results: Listeners performed significantly better in quiet (CST) and in noise (HINT) for the off condition than for either multichannel condition; however, restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 improved objective performance in quiet and in noise relative to the 4-channel condition. Conversely, satisfaction ratings were significantly greater for both multichannel conditions than for the off condition; however, satisfaction ratings were similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Overall, listeners preferred any form of multichannel expansion to no expansion; however, overall preference was similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Conclusions: Hearing instrument users prefer the use of multichannel expansion despite the fact multichannel expansion may significantly reduce the recognition of low-level speech in quiet and in noise. Although restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 (i.e., 2000 Hz and below) maintained subjective benefit for wide dynamic range compression hearing instrument users, the recognition of low-level speech was not completely preserved.",
author = "Patrick Plyler and Lowery, {Kristy J.} and Hamby, {Hilary M.} and Trine, {Timothy D.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/1092-4388(2007/002)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "15--24",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The objective and subjective evaluation of multichannel expansion in wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments

AU - Plyler, Patrick

AU - Lowery, Kristy J.

AU - Hamby, Hilary M.

AU - Trine, Timothy D.

PY - 2007/2/1

Y1 - 2007/2/1

N2 - Purpose: The effects of multichannel expansion on the objective and subjective evaluation of 20 listeners fitted binaurally with 4-channel, digital in-the-ear hearing instruments were investigated. Method: Objective evaluations were conducted in quiet using the Connected Speech Test (CST) and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) at 40, 50, and 60 dB SPL. Subjective evaluations were conducted by having each participant (a) rate their satisfaction regarding the amount of noise reduction they perceived daily and (b) indicate which expansion condition they preferred overall after a 2-week trial. Three expansion settings were programmed into the hearing aids: 4-channel expansion, expansion restricted to Channels 1 and 2 only, and expansion off. Results: Listeners performed significantly better in quiet (CST) and in noise (HINT) for the off condition than for either multichannel condition; however, restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 improved objective performance in quiet and in noise relative to the 4-channel condition. Conversely, satisfaction ratings were significantly greater for both multichannel conditions than for the off condition; however, satisfaction ratings were similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Overall, listeners preferred any form of multichannel expansion to no expansion; however, overall preference was similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Conclusions: Hearing instrument users prefer the use of multichannel expansion despite the fact multichannel expansion may significantly reduce the recognition of low-level speech in quiet and in noise. Although restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 (i.e., 2000 Hz and below) maintained subjective benefit for wide dynamic range compression hearing instrument users, the recognition of low-level speech was not completely preserved.

AB - Purpose: The effects of multichannel expansion on the objective and subjective evaluation of 20 listeners fitted binaurally with 4-channel, digital in-the-ear hearing instruments were investigated. Method: Objective evaluations were conducted in quiet using the Connected Speech Test (CST) and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) at 40, 50, and 60 dB SPL. Subjective evaluations were conducted by having each participant (a) rate their satisfaction regarding the amount of noise reduction they perceived daily and (b) indicate which expansion condition they preferred overall after a 2-week trial. Three expansion settings were programmed into the hearing aids: 4-channel expansion, expansion restricted to Channels 1 and 2 only, and expansion off. Results: Listeners performed significantly better in quiet (CST) and in noise (HINT) for the off condition than for either multichannel condition; however, restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 improved objective performance in quiet and in noise relative to the 4-channel condition. Conversely, satisfaction ratings were significantly greater for both multichannel conditions than for the off condition; however, satisfaction ratings were similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Overall, listeners preferred any form of multichannel expansion to no expansion; however, overall preference was similar for the restricted and the 4-channel conditions. Conclusions: Hearing instrument users prefer the use of multichannel expansion despite the fact multichannel expansion may significantly reduce the recognition of low-level speech in quiet and in noise. Although restricting expansion to Channels 1 and 2 (i.e., 2000 Hz and below) maintained subjective benefit for wide dynamic range compression hearing instrument users, the recognition of low-level speech was not completely preserved.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247846191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247846191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/002)

DO - 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/002)

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 15

EP - 24

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 1

ER -