Document Detail

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing in Open Canal Hearing Instruments.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23357806     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Background: Multichannel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree processing have similar goals yet differ significantly in terms of signal processing. Multichannel WDRC devices divide the input signal into separate frequency bands; a separate level is determined within each frequency band; and compression in each band is based on the level within each band. ChannelFree processing detects the wideband level, and gain adjustments are based on the wideband signal level and adjusted up to 20,000 times per second. Although both signal processing strategies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if differences in these signal processing strategies affect the performance and/or preference of the end user. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of multichannel wide dynamic range compression and ChannelFree processing on performance and/or preference of listeners using open-canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Fourteen adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two 5 wk trial periods for each signal processing strategy. Probe microphone, behavioral and subjective measures were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Behavioral and subjective results for both signal processing strategies were significantly better than unaided results; however, behavioral and subjective results were not significantly different between the signal processing strategies. Conclusions: Multichannel WDRC and ChannelFree processing are both effective signal processing strategies that provide significant benefit for hearing instrument users. Overall preference between the strategies may be related to the degree of hearing loss of the user, high-frequency in-situ levels, and/or acceptance of background noise.
Patrick N Plyler; Monika Bertges Reber; Amanda Kovach; Elisabeth Galloway; Elizabeth Humphrey
Related Documents :
24222266 - Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands.
11993996 - Spectral tuning and evolution of short wave-sensitive cone pigments in cottoid fish fro...
2635476 - Sawtooth contrast sensitivity: decrements have the edge.
8320586 - Luminance.
16656336 - Action spectrum and characteristics of the light activated disappearance of phytochrome...
11814196 - Electrode modification and the response of the acoustic shear wave device operating in ...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of the American Academy of Audiology     Volume:  24     ISSN:  1050-0545     ISO Abbreviation:  J Am Acad Audiol     Publication Date:  2013 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-01-29     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9114646     Medline TA:  J Am Acad Audiol     Country:  Canada    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  126-37     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
American Academy of Audiology.
Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Validation of the Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) Rating Scale.
Next Document:  An Initial-Fit Comparison of Two Generic Hearing Aid Prescriptive Methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to Indi...