ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2016
Nonlinear frequency compression: Influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2017Trial
- Evaluation of a Frequency-Lowering Algorithm for Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingTrial
- The Influence of the Stimulus Level Used to Prescribe Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Perception.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2024Article
- Effects of Adaptive Non-linear Frequency Compression in Hearing Aids on Mandarin Speech and Sound-Quality Perception.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Perception of Medial Consonants by Children With and Without Speech and Language Disorders: A Preliminary Study.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2020Article
- The Use of Frequency Lowering Technology in the Treatment of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: A Review of the Literature and Candidacy Considerations for Clinical Application.Seminars in hearing · 2018Review
- Survey of Current Practice in the Fitting and Fine-Tuning of Common Signal-Processing Features in Hearing Aids for Adults.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2018Article
- Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2017Article
- Auditory perceptual efficacy of nonlinear frequency compression used in hearing aids: A review.Journal of otology · 2017Review
- Quality ratings of frequency-compressed speech by participants with extensive high-frequency dead regions in the cochlea.International journal of audiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Comparison of Frequency Transposition and Frequency Compression for People With Extensive Dead Regions in the Cochlea.Trends in hearingArticle
- Modeling the Relationship Between Listener Factors and Envelope Fidelity: A Pooled Analysis Spanning a Decade.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
By varying parameters that control nonlinear frequency compression (NFC), this study examined how different ways of compressing inaudible mid- and/or high-frequency information at lower frequencies influences perception of consonants and vowels. Twenty-eight listeners with mild to moderately severe hearing loss identified consonants and vowels from nonsense syllables in noise following amplification via a hearing aid simulator. Low-pass filtering and the selection of NFC parameters fixed the output bandwidth at a frequency representing a moderately severe (3.3 kHz, group MS) or a mild-to-moderate (5.0 kHz, group MM) high-frequency loss. For each group (n = 14), effects of six combinations of NFC start frequency (SF) and input bandwidth [by varying the compression ratio (CR)] were examined. For both groups, the 1.6 kHz SF significantly reduced vowel and consonant recognition, especially as CR increased; whereas, recognition was generally unaffected if SF increased at the expense of a higher CR. Vowel recognition detriments for group MS were moderately correlated with the size of the second formant frequency shift following NFC. For both groups, significant improvement (33%-50%) with NFC was confined to final /s/ and /z/ and to some VCV tokens, perhaps because of listeners' limited exposure to each setting. No set of parameters simultaneously maximized recognition across all tokens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.