4.5 Article

Linking dynamic-range compression across the ears can improve speech intelligibility in spatially separated noise

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 133, 期 2, 页码 1004-1016

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4773862

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council (UK)
  2. Action on Hearing Loss, and Paula Stacey and Quentin Summerfield
  3. MRC [MC_U135097132, MC_U135088477] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U135088477, MC_U135097132] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently introduced hearing devices allow dynamic-range compression to be coordinated at the two ears through a wireless link. This study investigates how linking compression across the ears might improve speech intelligibility in the presence of a spatially separated steady noise. An analysis of the compressors' behavior shows how linked compression can preserve interaural level differences (ILDs) and, compared to compression operating independently at each ear, improve the long-term apparent speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the ear with the better SNR. Speech intelligibility for normal-hearing listeners was significantly better with linked than with unlinked compression. The performance with linked compression was similar to that without any compression. The benefit of linked over unlinked compression was the same for binaural listening and for monaural listening to the ear with the better SNR, indicating that the benefit was due to changes to the signal at this ear and not to the preservation of ILDs. Differences in performance across experimental conditions were qualitatively consistent with changes in apparent SNR at the better ear. Predictions made using a speech intelligibility model suggest that linked compression could potentially provide a user of bilateral hearing aids with an improvement in intelligibility of up to approximately ten percentage points. (C) 2013 Acoustical Society of America. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4773862]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据