March 4, 2008 Features

Multichannel Compression Hearing Aids: Perceptual Considerations

Digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms in hearing aids have become increasingly complex since they became commercially available in the mid-1990s. An informal review of several manufacturers' product lines revealed DSP hearing aids with between two and 24 channels of signal processing. Increasing the number of channels offers several theoretical advantages over single-channel signal processing. For example, multichannel compression systems can better accommodate variations in hearing threshold and dynamic range by providing differing amounts of gain across channels (Villchur, 1973).

Multichannel systems with wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) improve speech intelligibility over single-channel signal processing by providing greater audibility at low-input levels (Moore & Glasberg, 1986; Souza & Turner, 1998). Multichannel compression systems also can be designed to be less susceptible to background noise than single-channel compression systems (Moore, 1990; White, 1986). More recently, a benefit of increasing the number of channels is the availability of acoustic feedback technology (Kuk, Ludvigsen, & Kaulberg, 2002; Olsen, Müsch, & Struck, 2001) and noise reduction technology in digital hearing aids (Edwards, 2000; Kuk, Ludvigsen, & Paludan-Muller, 2002).

Despite the theoretical advantages of multichannel compression systems, increasing the number of independent channels does not always result in improved listener performance over single-channel compression (for a review, see Hickson, 1994, and Souza, 2002). This discussion offers a brief overview of how sound is processed through single-channel and multi-channel compression systems, and the potential perceptual reasons for the disparity between listening performance and an increased number of independent channels in a compression system.

Review of Processing Schemes

In a single-channel compression system, the amount of gain and output applied to the incoming signal is controlled by a single set of controllers (i.e., compression threshold, compression ratio, attack/release time; Figure 1 [PDF]). When the incoming signal is loud enough to trigger the compression controllers—either just below the listener's uncomfortable loudness level or at a level that places the input signal into the listener's residual dynamic range—there is a reduction in gain across the hearing aid's entire bandwidth. A major disadvantage of this signal-processing strategy is that it may be detrimental for listeners who exhibit variations in hearing thresholds and dynamic range across frequencies. This occurs because the reduction in overall gain may cause high-frequency sounds to become inaudible, which can reduce speech intelligibility.

Villchur (1973) was the first to advocate that multichannel compression could compensate for variations in hearing threshold and dynamic range by providing differing amounts of gain across channels. Specifically, the incoming signal is split into different frequency channels (Figure 2 on page 12 [PDF]), with each channel's gain and output controlled by its own set of controllers. Depending on the compression architecture, each channel may be controlled by manipulating compression threshold, compression ratio, and attack/release times independently in each channel or across a small subset of channels.

Restoring OHC Function

Outer hair cells (OHCs) play an active role in the cochlea by mechanically amplifying the stimulus in a highly frequency-selective manner and with a near-instantaneous time constant (Dallos, 1992, 1997). Given the cochlea's physiology, it seems logical to design hearing aid signal processing so that it restores damaged OHC function by mimicking the role of normal OHCs: low-threshold, fast-acting compression in many channels.

Unfortunately, multichannel devices with WDRC are unable to restore the mechanical properties of the cochlea. Figure 3 [PDF] shows the loss of the sharp (active) mechanical tuning of the basilar membrane at 3,000 Hz. OHC damage results primarily in the loss of sensitivity to low-level inputs at the characteristic frequency and a substantially broader (passive) tuning curve. The reduction in sensitivity at low-level inputs requires the signal at the input to the impaired cochlea be amplified to be heard.

At moderate- and high-level inputs, the passive OHC system requires less amplification as the input signal increases. Because of the reduced dynamic range, a common strategy is to provide the impaired cochlea with hearing aids having WDRC, which provides differing amounts of gain over a wide range of input levels. Hearing aids with WDRC, however, cannot restore the frequency selectivity of the normal cochlea, but it provides more audibility than other compression strategies at low-level inputs (Moore & Glasberg, 1986; Souza & Turner, 1998).

Figure 4 [PDF] illustrates the nonlinear tuning properties of the normal cochlea at four different intensities as measured from a single fiber in the auditory nerve of a squirrel monkey. Note that for a 25 dB input, OHC response shows a tuning function on the basilar membrane ranging between roughly 2000 and 6000 Hz with a peak response at the characteristic frequency of 4000 Hz. As the intensity level of the input stimulus increases, the tuning function broadens as OHC response becomes more passive. By the time the input stimulus level reaches 85 dB, the response is saturated, and tuning function now occurs over a much broader region. Therefore, increasing gain at moderate- and high-level inputs results in a broader tuning function, even in a normal cochlea.

In the impaired cochlea, however, the broadened tuning function at threshold, whose function is highly variable across listeners with hearing loss, may resemble the tuning function of a normal cochlea at high-level inputs (Florentine, Buus, Scharf, & Zwicker, 1980; Nelson, 1991). Perceptually, the impact of this tuning function affects recognition of vowels (Richie, Kewley-Port, & Coughlin, 2003; Turner & Henn, 1989) and consonants (Dubno & Shaefer, 1995; Turner, Chi, & Flock, 1999). Research also suggests that perceptual performance is highly variable across listeners (Stelmachowicz, Kopun, Mace, Lewis, & Nittrouter, 1995; Turner, Fabry, Barrett, & Horowitz, 1992).

With respect to hearing aid design, multiple narrow channels will produce broader-than-normal excitation in an impaired ear (Trine & Van Tasell, 2002).

Listener Performance

Given the mechanical properties of the cochlea, how many channels are sufficient to improve intelligibility? Most research in this area suggests essentially no improvement in speech intelligibility performance beyond four channels of signal processing (Barfod, 1978; Byrne & Walker, 1982; Walden, Surr, Cord, & Pavlovic, 1999). Only a few studies have shown improvement with more than four channels (Crain & Yund, 1995; Yund & Buckles, 1995a, b).

Recently, Woods, Van Tasell, Rickert, and Trine (2006) attempted to answer this question by quantifying the number of independent signal-processing channels required to maximize the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII; ANSI, 1997) for low- and high-level spectra or to match targets generated by the Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization (CAMEQ; Moore, 2000). This was performed for a variety of audiometric configurations, ranging from mild to severe. These authors found that one to five channels were adequate to predict speech recognition performance to be within 5% for 90% of the mild and moderate audiograms, and that three to nine channels were needed to achieve the same level of predicted performance for severe audiograms.

With the CAMEQ method, up to four channels of compression provided sufficient flexibility to predict performance in 90% of all audiograms. To better understand the disparity in findings for increasing the number of channels, the perceptual effects of channel summation and temporal/spectral smearing on intelligibility needs to be addressed.

Channel Summation

Clinically, audiologists use prescriptive formulae to estimate the electroacoustic settings of linear and nonlinear hearing aids. This is achieved by adjusting the settings on the hearing aid to match the prescriptive target. Once the output of the hearing aid matches the target, it is often assumed that the listener will receive optimal performance from the device in everyday listening conditions.

Unfortunately, this outcome is not always the case. Multichannel compression devices differ in the number of channels and channel bandwidth. These differences affect the output, which represents the summed output from all contributing channels (Kuk & Ludvigsen, 1999). In other words, as the number of independent channels in a device increases (and as compression ratio increases beyond 3:1 in each channel), the summation effect increases. For example, Kuk and Ludvigsen (2003) compared the output of four different hearing aids with varying numbers of channels and found that the output of a 15-channel device was nearly 10 dB greater than the output for a single-channel device, and nearly 5 dB greater than the output for two- and three-channel hearing aids. Kuk and Ludvigsen (1999, 2003) further indicate that output differences are less variable when complex input signals are used compared to pure tones.

As the sound pressure level at the output increases, there is greater potential for a decrease in speech intelligibility performance due to rollover. To date, channel summation is considered in at least three nonlinear prescriptive formulae (NAL-NL1, Byrne, Dillon, Ching, Katsch, & Keidser, 2001; CAMFIT, Moore, Glasberg, & Stone, 1999; DSLm[i/o], Scollie et al., 2005). These procedures calculate desired real-ear gain for broadband speech-like signals at various input levels. However, small differences in output have been found across the CAMFIT, NAL-NL1, and the previous version of DSL[i/o] (Cornelisse, Seewald, & Jamieson, 1995). These differences have been attributed to channel bandwidth and the manner in which compression is adjusted for a given listener, and the transfer functions associated with converting broadband stimuli into narrow-band target gain values in prescriptive formulae (Leijon, 2004).

It seems likely, therefore, that differences in listener performance between single-channel and multichannel compression systems and among multichannel compression systems differing in the number of channels may be obscured by a rollover effect. Research in this area is needed to corroborate this speculation.

Temporal/Spectral Smearing

Theoretically, compression in one channel of a multichannel system will reduce the gain only in that channel. A potential disadvantage of reducing gain is the decrease in temporal (time-amplitude) difference between phonemes. Kuk (2002) reported that as the number of channels increases in a hearing aid, temporal differences are further decreased, potentially affecting audibility. More specifically, WDRC hearing aids with fast-acting times compress high-level, low-frequency segments (i.e., vowels) and release fast enough to provide gain to low-level, high-frequency segments (i.e., consonants). Relative to the input, the temporal envelope of speech will then be smoothed or distorted (i.e., smeared), and the consonant-vowel amplitude ratio will be increased at the output.

Temporal fluctuations in the speech envelope provide segmental cues for manner of articulation, voicing, vowel identity, and prosody (Rosen, 1992). The reduction in temporal contrasts is most likely to affect listeners having greater than a moderate hearing loss and those with hearing impairment that rely on these perceptual cues to discriminate between sounds (De Gennaro, Braida, & Durlach, 1986; Moore, 1990; Plomp, 1988).

Temporal fluctuations in the speech envelope can also affect spectral (frequency-intensity) contrasts of phoneme identification, and these spectral contrasts are further decreased as the number of channels increases. The negative effects of increasing the number of channels are most pronounced on those sounds that carry pertinent information in the
spectral domain. For instance, a stop consonant (/p, b, t, d, k, g/) is characterized by its release from articulation resulting in a transient noise burst. Given the place of articulation in the vocal tract, the adjacent vowel will have a falling or rising second formant (Borden, Harris, & Raphael, 2003).

For some listeners with hearing loss, the relative amplitude between the transient noise burst and the formant slope is used as a perceptual cue (Hedrick & Younger, 2001). Reducing gain through a fast-acting compression device increases the amplitude of the stop burst, resulting in /t/ being perceived as /p/ (Hedrick & Rice, 2000) and /g/ being perceived as /d/ (Sreevivas, Fourakis, & Davidson, 1997). Studies have also found reducing gain alters the rise-time generated by the transient noise burst in an affricate (/dZ/, /tS/), which affects phoneme identification (Dreschler, 1988; Jenstad & Souza, 2005).

Cognition

Recently, it has been hypothesized that cognitive ability may interact with different signal-processing schemes (Gatehouse, Naylor, & Elberling, 2003; Lunner, 2003), potentially affecting success with amplification. For example, Lunner studied the relationship between working-memory capacity (i.e., high or low) and the ability to identify and report specific effects of a multimemory experimental hearing aid in the field. Memory 1 of the hearing aid was programmed to process the incoming signal differently when speech was present (increase amplification) and when it was absent (decrease amplification). Memory 2 of the hearing aid was programmed to increase amplification regardless of the incoming signal. Using a questionnaire, subjects reported their performance of the two settings in different listening situations. Results revealed that subjects with higher working-memory capacity were better able to identify and report the specific effects of the aid than those subjects with lower working-memory capacity.

Few studies have assessed the relationship between multichannel signal processing and cognition. Recently, Gatehouse and colleagues (2003) tested 50 experienced listeners with five different hearing aid processing systems: single-channel linear; dual-channel linear; dual-channel compression with fast-acting compression (40 msec) in both channels; dual-channel compression with slow-acting compression (640 msec) in both channels; and dual-channel compression with fast-acting compression (40 msec) in the low-frequency channel and slow-acting compression in the high-frequency channel.

Subjects also completed a variety of cognitive tests and outcome measures. Results showed that listeners with greater cognitive ability were able to derive greater benefit in background noise with devices having fast-acting compression, while listeners with poorer cognitive ability performed better with slow-acting compression. Some hearing aid manufacturers now offer defaults for slower release times in their fitting software for older hearing aid candidates (Souza, 2004). The rationale for providing slower release times is that reduced cognitive abilities may limit the successful recognition of the fast components of speech, particularly in the presence of background noise (Cienkowski, 2003). Data from our laboratory suggest that the type of release time best suited for a listener depends more on cognitive function than on age and hearing loss (Amlani, Ahumada, & Miller, unpublished data). Clearly, there is a need for continued research in this area.

Future Needs

Despite its theoretical advantages, compression in many channels has been shown to be neither superior nor inferior to compression in a single channel. In part this finding is due to differences in fitting techniques, compression architecture, and methodology between studies. However, the inability of clinicians to predict those technological features that will enhance a listener's perception of speech may be the most important cause for this paradox.

There is clearly a need to develop clinical measures that can better assess the tuning properties of the cochlea and assess the cognitive effects of listener perception to alterations in natural speech produced by different characteristics of hearing aid signal processing. At the same time, research that evaluates the physical attributes of compression architecture needs to continue.

Only when the bridge between perceptual assessment and hearing aid architecture narrows will we achieve success in adequately fitting different signal processing strategies.

This article was adapted from the September 2007 issue of Perspectives, the Internet publication of Division 6, Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics. The original article, together with other articles in the issue, constitute content available for self-study that offers ASHA CEUs.for Division 6 affiliates. For more information, see box above.

Amyn M. Amlani, is an assistant professor in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of North Texas in Denton. His research interests include hearing aid fitting and procedures, auditory perception, cognition and hearing, and marketing trends in the hearing aid industry. Contact him at amlaniam@unt.edu.  

cite as: Amlani, A. M. (2008, March 04). Multichannel Compression Hearing Aids: Perceptual Considerations. The ASHA Leader.

Special Interest Division

Division 6, Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics offers affiliates the opportunity to earn CEUs through self-study of the Division's peer-reviewed Internet publication, Perspectives, an exclusive e-mail list and Web forum, and other benefits. To learn more, go to the Division 6 Web page.

References

Amlani, A.M. (1997). Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index, ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute.

Amlani, A.M., Ahumada, A.G., & Miller, K.D. (2007). Effect of age, hearing sensitivity and competing noise on encoding-processing capacity. Unpublished manscript.

Barfod, J. (1978). Multichannel compression hearing aids: Experiments and considerations on clinical applicability. Scandinavian AudiologySupplement(6), 315-339.

Borden, G.J., Harris, K.S., & Raphael, L.J. (Eds.) (2003). Speech science primer: Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.

Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R., & Keidser, G. (2001). NAL-NL1 Procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 37-51.

Byrne, D., & Walker, G. (1982). The effects of multichannel compression and expansion on perceived quality of speech. Australian Journal of Audiology, 4, 1-9.

Cienkowski, K.M. (2003, May/June). Auditory aging: A look at hearing loss in older adults. The Journal of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People. Retrieved June 3, 2007, from http://www.hearingloss.org/docs/auditoryaging.pdf [PDF].

Cornelisse, L.E., Seewald, R. C., & Jamieson, D. G. (1995). The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1854-64

Crain, T.R., & Yund, E.W. (1995). The effect of multichannel compression on vowel and stop-consonant discrimination in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Ear and Hearing, 16, 529-543.

Dallos, P. (1992). The active cochlea. Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 4575-4585.

De Gennaro, S., Braida, L., & Durlach, N. (1986). Multichannel syllabic compression for severely impaired listeners. Journal of Rehabilitative Research and Development, 23, 17-24.

Dreschler (1988). The effect of specific compression settings on phoneme identification in hearing-impaired subjects. Scandinavian Audiology, 17, 35-43.

Dubno, J. R., & Shaefer, A. B. (1995). Frequency selectivity and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners with equivalent masked thresholds. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 97, 1165-1174.

Edwards, B.W. (2000). Beyond amplification: Signal processing techniques for improving speech intelligibility in noise with hearing aids. Seminar in Hearing, 21, 137-156.

Florentine, M., Buus, S., Scharf, B., & Zwicker, E. (1980). Frequency selectivity in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired observers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 646-649.

Hedrick, M., & Rice, T. (2000). Effect of a single-channel wide dynamic range compression circuit on perception of stop consonant place of articulation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,43, 1174-1184.

Hedrick, M., & Younger, M.S. (2001). Perceptual weighting of relative amplitude and formant transition cues in aided CV syllables. Journal of Speech and Hearing, 44, 964-974.

Hickson, L.M.H. (1994). Compression amplification in hearing aids. American Journal of Audiology, 3, 51-65.

Jenstad, L.M., & Souza, P.E. (2005). Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 651-667.

Kuk, F. (2002). Considerations in modern multichannel nonlinear hearing aids. In M. Valente (Ed.), Hearing aids: Standards, options, and limitations (2nd ed., p. 178-213). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.

Kuk, F. & Ludvigsen, C. (2003). Changing with the times: Choice of stimuli for hearing aid verification. Hearing Review, 10(9), 24-28, 56-57.

Kuk, F., Ludvigsen, C, & Kaulberg, T. (2002). Understanding feedback and digital feedback cancellation strategies. Hearing Review, 9(2), 36-41, 48.

Kuk, F., Ludvigsen, C., Paludan-Muller, C. (2002). Improving hearing aid performance in noise: Challenges and strategies. Hearing Journal, 55(4), 34-56.

Leijon, A. (2004, August). Can pure tone real ear measures be used to predict hearing aid gain for speech? Poster presentation at the International Hearing Aid Conference, Lake Tahoe, NV.

Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. International Journal of Audiology, 42 (Suppl.), S49-S58.

Moore, B.C.J. (1990). How do we gain by gain control in hearing aids? Acta Otolaryngologica Supplement, 469, 250-256.

Moore, B. C. J. (2000). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore "normal" loudness for speech at different levels. British Journal of Audiology,34, 165-177.

Moore, B.C.J., & Glasberg, B.R. (1986). A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids. Audiology, 25, 210-226.

Moore, B.C J., Glasberg, B.R., & Stone, M.A. (1999). Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multichannel compression. British Journal of Audiology, 33, 241-258.

Nelson, D. A. (1991). High-level psychophysical tuning curves: Forward masking in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1233-1249.

Olsen, L., Müsch, H., & Struck, C. (2001). Digital solutions for feedback control. Hearing Review, 8(5), 44-49.

Plomp, R. (1988). The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulation-transfer function. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 2322-2327.

Richie, C., Kewley-Port, D., & Coughlin, M. (2003). Discrimination and identification of vowels by young, hearing-impaired adults. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 114, 2923-2933.

Rosen, S. (1992). Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B: Biological Sciences, 336, 367-373.

Scollie, S., Seewald, R., Cornelisse, L., Moodie, S., Bagatto, M., Laurnagaray, D., Beaulac, S., & Pumford, J. (2005). The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in Amplification, 9, 159-197.

Souza, P. (2004). New hearing aids for older listeners. Hearing Journal, 57(3), 10, 12, 16-17.

Souza, P.E., & Turner, C.W. (1998). Multichannel compression, temporal cues and audibility. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research, 41, 315-326.

Sreenivas, C., Fourakis, M., & Davidson, S. (1997, April). Effect of varying release times on speech perception using syllabic compression. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Audiology, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Stelmachowicz, P.G., Kopun, J., Mace, A., Lewis, D, & Nittrouter, S. (1995). The perception of amplified speech by listeners with hearing loss: Acoustic correlates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 412-422.

Trine, T.D., & Van Tasell, D. (2002). Digital hearing aid design: Fact vs. fantasy. The Hearing Journal, 55(2), 36-38, 40-42.

Turner, C.W., & Henn, C.C. (1989). The relation between vowel recognition and measures of frequency resolution. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 49-58.

Turner, C.W., Chi, S., & Flock, S. (1999). Limiting spectral resolution in speech for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 773-784.

Turner, C., Fabry, D., Barrett, S., & Horwitz, A. (1992). Detection and recognition of stop consonants by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 942-949.

Villchur, E. (1973). Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53, 1646-1657.

Walden, B.E., Surr, R.K., Cord, M.T., & Pavlovic, C.V. (1999). A clinical trial of the Resound IC4 hearing device. American Journal of Audiology, 8, 65-78.

White, M.W. (1986). Compression systems for hearing aids and cochlear prostheses. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 23, 25-39.

Woods, W.S., Van Tasell, D.J., Rickert, M.E., & Trine, T.D. (2006). SII and fit-to-target analysis of compression system performance as a function of number of compression channels. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 630-644.

Yund, E., & Buckles, K. (1995a). Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1206-1223.

Yund, E., & Buckles, K. (1995b). Enhanced speech perception at low signal-to-noise ratios with multichannel compression hearing aids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1224-1240.



  

Advertise With UsAdvertisement