Biomedical subjects

T A Ricketts

Publications and source records attributed to T A Ricketts.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners.

Previous research has demonstrated reduced speech recognition when speech is presented at higher-than-normal levels (e.g., above conversational speech levels), particularly in the presence of speech-shaped background noise. Persons with hearing loss frequently listen to speech-in-noise at these levels through hearing aids, which incorporate multiple-channel, wide dynamic range compression. This study examined the interactive effects of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), speech presentation level, and compression ratio on consonant recognition in noise. Nine subjects with normal hearing identified CV and VC nonsense syllables in a speech-shaped noise at two SNRs (0 and +6 dB), three presentation levels (65, 80, and 95 dB SPL) and four compression ratios (1:1, 2:1, 4:1, and 6:1). Stimuli were processed through a simulated three-channel, fast-acting, wide dynamic range compression hearing aid. Consonant recognition performance decreased as compression ratio increased and presentation level increased. Interaction effects were noted between SNR and compression ratio, as well as between presentation level and compression ratio. Performance decrements due to increases in compression ratio were larger at the better (+6 dB) SNR and at the lowest (65 dB SPL) presentation level. At higher levels (95 dB SPL), such as those experienced by persons with hearing loss, increasing compression ratio did not significantly affect speech intelligibility.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the prescribed gain, compression ratios, compression thresholds, and the relative predicted speech intelligibility (Speech Intelligibility Index [SII], American National Standards Institute 3.79, proposed) provided by four strategies proposed for selecting hearing aid parameters for low-threshold compression hearing instruments and by a traditional threshold-based hearing aid fitting procedure. The strategies used were Desired Sensation Level Input/Output (DSLTM[i/o]; Cornelisse, Seewald, & Jamieson, 1994), Visual Input-Output Locator Algorithm (VIOLA; Cox, 1994), FIG6 strategy (Killion, Reference Note 2), Ricketts and Bentler strategy (RAB), and a threshold-based hearing aid fitting procedure (National Acoustics Laboratories-Revised [NAL-R]; Byrne & Dillion, 1986). These new strategies have been suggested as alternatives to threshold-based strategies, which do not provide the varying amounts of target gain, as a function of input level, necessary to fit low-threshold compression hearing aids. DESIGN: The electroacoustic prescriptions and the predicted speech intelligibility were calculated across all five fitting strategies for 20 subjects. The threshold and loudness growth information used for each fitting was reported previously (Ricketts & Bentler, in press). RESULTS: Comparison across prescriptions revealed that the NAL-R strategy (due to the linear gain provided) prescribed the least gain for low-level inputs and the greatest gain for high-level inputs. Gain comparisons across fitting by loudness (FBL) strategies revealed a more shallow frequency response slope for strategies that require individual measures of loudness growth (RAB, VIOLA) in comparison with strategies that assumed average data (FIG6, DSLTM[i/o]). SII results revealed greater predicted speech intelligibility for the FIG6 and the DSLTM[i/o] compared with the NAL-R, RAB, and VIOLA. These differences were most apparent in noise backgrounds and least evident when loudness differences were minimized. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that differences in SII scores across the FBL fitting strategies are due, in part, to differences in the loudness of the output signal. It is assumed that differences in high-frequency shaping may also be a factor. These data do not appear to support the use of additional clinical time to obtain individual loudness growth measures. However, due to the fact that SII results are based on average performance, it is difficult to predict whether differences across these fitting strategies would be realized in actual measures of speech intelligibility or sound quality on an individual basis.

Correction of Hearing Impairment↗

PubMed1996

The effect of test signal type and bandwidth on the categorical scaling of loudness.

Recently several methods for obtaining clinical measures of loudness growth through the use of categorical scaling (CS) have been proposed for the selection of hearing aids. These methods use differing test signals or suggest frequency-specific level corrections in an attempt to reflect the loudness perception of hearing aid-processed speech. While some decisions regarding the stimuli utilized for loudness perception procedures are based on measured relationships to speech signals, the effect on loudness perception of changing signal type and bandwidth (as measured by CS) remains unclear. The relationships between the CS loudness growth of signals of differing type, (pure tones, noise bands, filtered/temporally inverted/passband speech) and bandwidth were examined for subjects with both normal and impaired hearing. Results suggest that when the bandwidth is similar (e.g., pure tone and 1/3 oct), signal type does not have significant bearing on loudness perception. As expected, increasing the bandwidth beyond the critical band affected loudness growth, as wideband speech stimuli were judged to be significantly louder than narrow-band speech at equivalent overall sound levels. In this investigation, similar loudness growth patterns were noted across category ratings for all test signal bandwidths. In contrast, loudness growth data obtained using an intelligible speech signal [Cox et al., The American Academy of Audiology (1994a)], revealed loudness growth patterns for speech were fundamentally different than those obtained for tones. Implications for hearing aid fitting strategies are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Comparison of two digitally programmable hearing aids.

The purpose of this project was to compare the Widex Quattro and the Ensoniq Sound Selector hearing instruments as to benefits (real and perceived) and overall convenience. It is the premise of the Ensoniq designers that a high fidelity (wide band) hearing aid is adequate for all listening conditions due to its exact reproduction of sound. Conversely, it is the premise of the Quattro designers that a hearing aid user needs access to multiple frequency responses (memories) for optimal benefit in different communicative situations. Subjective measures showed little differentiation between the two instruments, except for the Ease of Communication subtest of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). New users rated the Quattro as performing better, while experienced users rated the Ensoniq significantly better. Objective measures indicated some differences in the performance of the two instruments, although these results may be related to the fitting strategies employed.

Adult↗