A digital filterbank hearing aid: predicting user preference and performance for two signal processing algorithms

Abstract

Objective: In a series of experiments with a wearable binaural digital hearing aid, two hearing aid processing algorithms were compared. Both algorithms provided individual frequency shaping via a seven-band filterbank with compression limiting in the high-frequency channel. They differed in the processing of the low-frequency channel, using dynamic range compression for one (DynEar) and linear processing with compression limiting for the other (LinEar). In a pilot field test we found that LinEar/ DynEar preference based on use time could be predicted from auditory dynamic range data. For the subjects who preferred DynEar, the mean dynamic range was broader for low and mid frequencies and narrower for high frequencies, as compared with the LinEar preference subjects. These groupings were tested as predictors of user preference and performance in a main field test.

Design: The main study included 26 hearing aid users with symmetrical sensorineural losses. The algorithms were compared in a one-mo-long blind field test. A data logger function was included for objective recording of the total time each algorithm was used and how the volume controls were used. The preference was based on the time used for each algorithm and on subjective statements. Threshold signal-to-noise ratio (S/N-threshold) for speech was tested, and sound quality ratings were obtained through a questionnaire. We also tested the S/N-thresholds for the subjects' conventional (own) aids.

Results: The preference was correctly predicted by the dynamic range data on 12 out of 15 new cases. S/N-thresholds were lower for the preferred fittings compared with the nonpreferred fittings and with the subjects' own aids. In the questionnaire the preferred fittings were rated significantly higher in terms of overall impression and clearness. Because of the systematic way the DynEar-preference subjects adjusted the high-frequency DynEar gain, we speculate that upward spread of masking may have been a factor in preference and performance. Additionally, LinEar-preference subjects' preference and performance might have been influenced by excessive compression ratios with the DynEar processing in these cases.

Conclusions: 1. Preference for DynEar versus LinEar depends on the auditory dynamic range. 2. S/N-thresholds for speech were better for the preferred fittings, which also were rated higher in terms of overall impression of sound quality and clearness.