Savage Inge, Dillon Harvey, Byrne Denis, Bächler Herbert
National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia.
Ear Hear. 2006 Oct;27(5):550-62. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000233982.63172.50.
A series of experiments designed to test the preferences of people with moderate to profound hearing losses for limiting the output of hearing aids by using peak clipping (PC), fast compression limiting (FCL), PC and FCL, and these three methods in combination with slow compression limiting (SCL) was conducted.
Nineteen participants with moderate to profound sensorineural or mixed losses were recruited. In the first experiment, preferences for either PC or FCL were tested in a field trial in the participants' usual environments.A second experiment examined the acceptance of PC, FCL, and FCL + PC, using paired comparisons in a laboratory setting. The third experiment involved further paired comparisons in the laboratory to evaluate whether participants preferred PC, FCL, PC and FCL combined, or the three methods when combined with SCL.
The participants showed no statistically significant preferences for either peak clipping or fast compression limiting in the field trial. In the laboratory trial, both FCL + PC and FCL were significantly preferred over PC alone, and the addition of FCL to PC was most advantageous to participants who required the lowest maximum limiting output. The most dramatic laboratory result was the convincing preference in paired comparison testing of combining SCL with PC and/or FCL.
Slow compression limiting appears to be a desirable feature in hearing aids for clients with a moderate to profound hearing loss. Preferences were not as pronounced when peak clipping, fast compression limiting, and peak clipping plus fast compression limiting were compared, but participants favored the condition that had the least amount of peak clipping.
开展了一系列实验，旨在测试中重度听力损失患者对采用峰值削波（PC）、快速压缩限制（FCL）、PC与FCL以及这三种方法与慢速压缩限制（SCL）相结合来限制助听器输出的偏好。
招募了19名中重度感音神经性或混合性听力损失患者。在第一个实验中，在患者的日常环境中进行现场试验，测试对PC或FCL的偏好。第二个实验在实验室环境中采用配对比较的方法，研究对PC、FCL以及FCL+PC的接受情况。第三个实验在实验室中进一步进行配对比较，以评估参与者更喜欢PC、FCL、PC与FCL组合，还是这三种方法与SCL组合。
在现场试验中，参与者对峰值削波或快速压缩限制均未表现出统计学上的显著偏好。在实验室试验中，FCL+PC和FCL均明显比单独的PC更受青睐，并且在PC中加入FCL对需要最低最大限制输出的参与者最为有利。实验室中最显著的结果是，在配对比较测试中，SCL与PC和/或FCL组合具有令人信服的偏好。
对于中重度听力损失患者，慢速压缩限制似乎是助听器中一个理想的功能。在比较峰值削波、快速压缩限制以及峰值削波加快速压缩限制时，偏好并不那么明显，但参与者更倾向于峰值削波最少的情况。
