The Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio and Speech Perception in Noise: The Effect of Multichannel and Free-Channel Hearing Aids
Abstract
Background and Aim: The output Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) is one of the essential factors in hearing aid benefits. There is limited evidence regarding SNR improvement by the Channel-Free (CFHA) and Multi-Channel Hearing Aid (MCHA) and the speech understanding in noise through them. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which output SNR was modified by CFHA and MCHA processing and the variation in aided speech recognition abilities with a change in output SNR.
Methods: Thirty-six participants aged 50–65 years were included. A chosen CFHA and MCHA were used to obtain the output SNR and sentence recognition in noise in four different processing algorithms (linear, linear+noise reduction, WDRC, WDRC+noise reduction). Hagerman’s phase inversion technique was used to measure the attenuation of noise and, in turn, to obtain the output SNR of the hearing aid.
Results: In all hearing aid processing algorithms among those with normal hearing and people with hearing loss, the output of CFHA revealed higher attenuation values than that of MCHA. There was a significant effect of the hearing aids and processing algorithms in both normal and individuals with hearing impairment on the mean SNR. Further, multiple linear regression analysis results showed that whether the hearing is channel-free or multichannel significantly predicted speech recognition scores, while output SNR and processing algorithms did not.
Conclusion: The signal processing algorithms in CFHA had greater noise attenuation values, better output SNR, and speech recognition scores, showing an advantage over the modern MCHA among individuals with hearing impairment.
2. Tremblay KL, Scollie S, Abrams HB, Sullivan JR, McMahon CM. Hearing AIDS and the brain. Int J Otolaryngol. 2014;2014:518967. [DOI:10.1155/2014/518967]
3. Hagerman B, Olofsson Å. A Method to Measure the Effect of Noise Reduction Algorithms Using Simultaneous Speech and Noise. Acta Acust United Acust. 2004;90(2):356-61.
4. Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. Acoustical and Perceptual Comparison of Noise Reduction and Compression in Hearing Aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(4):1363-76. [DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0347]
5. Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015;26(2):183-96. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.26.2.7]
6. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 1st ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2008.
7. Rallapalli VH, Alexander JM. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition with variants of a multichannel adaptive dynamic range compression scheme. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(10):661-9. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2019.1617902]
8. Plyler PN, Reber MB, Kovach A, Galloway E, Humphrey E. Comparison of multichannel wide dynamic range compression and Channel Free processing in open canal hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013;24(2):126-37. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.24.2.6]
9. Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dualmicrophone directionality. Audiology. 2000;39(5):260-8. [DOI:10.3109/00206090009073090]
10. Geetha C, Kumar KSS, Manjula P, Pavan M. Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci. 2014;4(1):18-26. [DOI:10.17430/890267]
11. Souza PE, Jenstad LM, Boike KT. Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(1):41-4. [DOI:10.1121/1.2108861]
12. Naylor G, Johannesson RB. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20(3):161-71. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.20.3.2]
13. Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;48(3):651-67. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/045)]
14. Hartling C, Wu Y-H, Bentler RA. Hearing aid algorithm stability: Hagerman’s phase inversion technique. Poster presented at the American Auditory Society Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona; 2012.
15. Moore BC. How much do we gain by gain control in hearing aids? Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;469:250-6. [DOI:10.1080/00016489.1990.12088437]
16. Schaub A. Digital Hearing Aids. New York: Thieme; 2008.
17. Plomp R. The negative effect of amplitude compression in multichannel hearing aids in the light of the modulationtransfer function. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83(6):2322-7. [DOI:10.1121/1.396363]
18. de Silva MDK, Kooknoor V, Shetty HN, Thondadarya S. Effect of multichannel and channels free hearing aid signal processing on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise. Int J Health Sci Res. 2016;6(3):248-57.
19. Kılıç M, Kara E. The Effect of Multichannel and Channel-Free Hearing Aids on Spectral-Temporal Resolution and Speech Understanding in Noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2022;33(5):285-92. [DOI:10.1055/a-1817-6840]
20. Kodiyath GK, Mohan KM, Bellur R. Influence of channel and ChannelFree™ processing technology on the vocal parameters in hearing-impaired individuals. Indian J Otol. 2017;23(1):21-6. [DOI:10.4103/0971-7749.199506]
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 33 No 3 (2024) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v33i3.15507 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Channel-free hearing aids multi-channel hearing aids sensorineural hearing loss speech recognition | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
