ArticleEar and hearing
Limitations of the Envelope Difference Index as a Metric for Nonlinear Distortion in Hearing Aids.
Article in Ear and hearing. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open Speech Platform: Democratizing Hearing Aid Research.International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare : [proceedings]. International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare · 2020Article
- Perceptual Distortions in Aided Hearing-Impaired Listeners: Psychophysical Evidence of Excessive Loudness Growth and Altered Timbre Representation.Trends in 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe envelope difference index (EDI) compares the envelopes of two signals. It has been used to measure nonlinear distortion in hearing aids, but it also responds to linear processing. This article compares linear and nonlinear processing effects on the EDI.
designThe EDI for spectral tilt and peak clipping distortion is computed to illustrate the effects of linear and nonlinear signal modifications. The EDI for wide dynamic-range compression is then compared with that obtained for linear amplification for a set of standard audiograms to show the expected range of EDI values for linear and nonlinear hearing aid processing. The EDI for hearing aid amplification and compression is also compared with a measure of time-frequency envelope modulation distortion for the same conditions.
resultsThe EDI is shown to be as sensitive to linear amplification as it is to nonlinear processing. The EDI values for spectral tilt can exceed those for peak clipping, and the EDI values for linear amplification exceed those for wide dynamic-range compression for four of the nine audiograms considered. The agreement of the EDI with a nonlinear envelope distortion measure is shown to depend on the long-term spectra of the signals being compared when computing the EDI.
conclusionsThe accuracy of the EDI as an indicator of nonlinear distortion for sentence materials can be improved by equalizing the long-term spectrum of the processed signal to match that of the unprocessed input. However, the EDI does not have a clear interpretation because of the confound between linear and nonlinear processing effects and the lack of an auditory model in calculating the signal differences.
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.