ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2019
Influence of Instantaneous Compression on Recognition of Speech in Noise with Temporal Dips.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Audibility and Distortion on Recognition of Reverberant Speech for Children and Adults with Hearing Aid Amplification.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2022Article
- Influence of suppression on restoration of spectral loudness summation in listeners with hearing loss.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn listening environments with background noise that fluctuates in level, listeners with normal hearing can "glimpse" speech during dips in the noise, resulting in better speech recognition in fluctuating noise than in steady noise at the same overall level (referred to as masking release). Listeners with sensorineural hearing loss show less masking release. Amplification can improve masking release but not to the same extent that it does for listeners with normal hearing. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss obtained with an experimental hearing-aid signal-processing algorithm with instantaneous compression (referred to as a suppression hearing aid, SHA) to masking release obtained with fast compression. The suppression hearing aid mimics effects of normal cochlear suppression, i.e., the reduction in the response to one sound by the simultaneous presentation of another sound. RESEARCH
designA within-participant design with repeated measures across test conditions was used. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants included 29 adults with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and 21 adults with normal hearing.
interventionParticipants with sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with simulators for SHA and a generic hearing aid (GHA) with fast (but not instantaneous) compression (5 ms attack and 50 ms release times) and no suppression. Gain was prescribed using either an experimental method based on categorical loudness scaling (CLS) or the Desired Sensation Level (DSL) algorithm version 5a, resulting in a total of four processing conditions: CLS-GHA, CLS-SHA, DSL-GHA, and DSL-SHA. DATA COLLECTION: All participants listened to consonant-vowel-consonant nonwords in the presence of temporally-modulated and steady noise. An adaptive-tracking procedure was used to determine the signal-to-noise ratio required to obtain 29% and 71% correct. Measurements were made with amplification for participants with sensorineural hearing loss and without amplification for participants with normal hearing. ANALYSIS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine the influence of within-participant factors of noise type and, for participants with sensorineural hearing loss, processing condition on masking release. Pearson correlational analysis was used to assess the effect of age on masking release for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.
resultsStatistically significant masking release was observed for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss for 29% correct, but not for 71% correct. However, the amount of masking release was less than masking release for participants with normal hearing. There were no significant differences among the amplification conditions for participants with sensorineural hearing loss.
conclusionsThe results suggest that amplification with either instantaneous or fast compression resulted in similar masking release for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. However, the masking release was less for participants with hearing loss than it was for those with normal hearing.
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.