ReviewTrends in hearing
A Data-driven Distance Metric for Evaluating the effects of Dynamic Range Compression in Adverse Conditions.
Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acoustic Scene-Aware Processing and Auditory Model-Based Compensation Strategies.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Review
- Access to "speech glimpses" in multitalker mixtures afforded by non-linear hearing-aid gain with fast-acting compression.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- The Noise Reduction Algorithm May Not Compensate for the Degradation in Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio Caused by Wide Dynamic Range Compression.American journal of audiology · 2024Article
- Effects of Source-Specific Dynamic Range Compression on Sound Quality for Individuals With Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Neural-WDRC: A Deep Learning Wide Dynamic Range Compression Method Combined With Controllable Noise Reduction for Hearing Aids.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dynamic range compression is a crucial component in hearing aids, aiming to restore audibility for hearing-impaired listeners. However, determining suitable compression parameters, such as the time constants for the level estimation stage, remains a topic of debate, as the perceptual benefit of different parameter configurations varies depending on the acoustic conditions. In this study, a data-driven distance metric based on physical metrics was developed to evaluate and compare the performance of various compression systems. This analysis encompassed fast-acting and slow-acting compression, as well as a "scene-aware" compression that dynamically adjusted the release time constant based on the presence of the target. A reference system called "source-independent compression" was also considered, which had access to individual speech and noise signals. Multiple physical metrics were employed to assess the effects of these different compression systems under diverse acoustic conditions, including varying levels of interfering noise and degrees of room reverberation. Factor analysis was applied to derive a concise set of interpretable features representing the impact of compression, expressed as linear combinations of carefully selected objective metrics. The reduced dimensional representation enabled the use of the Manhattan distance to measure the similarity between the compression systems. Results demonstrated that the scene-aware compressor generally exhibited a smaller distance to the reference system compared to both the fast-acting and slow-acting compressors. This finding suggests that an adaptive compression system holds potential benefits across a range of acoustic conditions.
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.