| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 The University of Queensland, Australia
In this tutorial, the characteristics of compression amplification in analog hearing aids and the experimental results obtained with single- and multichannel compression amplification systems are reviewed. Single-channel compression systems are classified into four broad groups on the basis of their static and dynamic characteristics: compression limiters, syllabic compressors, automatic volume control (AVC) systems, and "others," those with adaptive recovery time (aRT) and dual frontend automatic gain control (AGC) (Moore, 1990; Moore & Glasberg, 1988). Multichannel compression devices have, to date, used a variety of different types of compression, with syllabic compression in each frequency channel being the most popular. Experimental evidence suggests that compression limiting is generally superior to peak clipping as a means of controlling output, except for some individuals with severe to profound hearing loss. There is some evidence that syllabic compression and AVC systems enhance speech perception in quiet compared to conventional linear amplification; however, this improvement is not consistently maintained in the presence of background noise. The majority of recent research has focused on multichannel compression, and favorable results have been obtained with some systems. Research findings about the efficacy of using compression amplification for people with hearing loss have been extremely variable, and possible reasons for this are discussed.
Key Words: compression, amplification, hearing aids, automatic gain control (AGC)
Submitted on August 22, 1993
Accepted on December 21, 1993
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. M. Alexander and K. R. Kluender Spectral Tilt Change in Stop Consonant Perception by Listeners With Hearing Impairment J Speech Lang Hear Res, June 1, 2009; 52(3): 653 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.-F. Shi and K. A. Doherty Subjective and Objective Effects of Fast and Slow Compression on the Perception of Reverberant Speech in Listeners With Hearing Loss J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2008; 51(5): 1328 - 1340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. C. J. Moore The Choice of Compression Speed in Hearing Aids: Theoretical and Practical Considerations and the Role of Individual Differences Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2008; 12(2): 103 - 112. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. W. Henning and R. A. Bentler The Effects of Hearing Aid Compression Parameters on the Short-Term Dynamic Range of Continuous Speech J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2008; 51(2): 471 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. J. Moore Dead Regions in the Cochlea: Diagnosis, Perceptual Consequences, and Implications for the Fitting of Hearing Aids Trends in Amplification, March 1, 2001; 5(1): 1 - 34. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. D. Larson, D. W. Williams, W. G. Henderson, L. E. Luethke, L. B. Beck, D. Noffsinger, R. H. Wilson, R. A. Dobie, G. B. Haskell, G. W. Bratt, et al. Efficacy of 3 Commonly Used Hearing Aid Circuits: A Crossover Trial JAMA, October 11, 2000; 284(14): 1806 - 1813. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. A. Stach and A. J. Gulya Hearing Aids: I. Conventional Hearing Devices Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, March 1, 1996; 122(3): 227 - 231. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASHA Journals | AJA | AJSLP | JSLHR | LSHSS |
