Hickson L, Dodd B, Byrne D
Speech and Hearing Department, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Scand Audiol. 1995;24(3):175-84. doi: 10.3109/01050399509047532.
The consonant perception of 15 subjects with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss was evaluated using linear amplification and two different types of compression amplification. A specially modified hearing aid was used which allowed for variation of the amplifier input/output function in three steps, such that the compression ratio could be set to 1 (linear), 1.3 or 1.8. The Nonsense Syllable Test (NST) was recorded through the aid in quiet and in two different noise conditions (four-talker babble and a background noise with sharp intermittent sounds), and replayed to the listeners through headphones. No differences in consonant perception were found between the different types of amplification in the quiet condition. In the babble condition, consonant perception was significantly better with linear amplification than with either form of compression. In the sharp noise condition, there was no difference in performance between linear amplification and compression amplification with the ratio of 1.8. Consonant perception was adversely affected, however, by the compression and amplification with the ratio of 1.3 in this condition. Overall NST results and results for particular classes of consonants are discussed.
使用线性放大和两种不同类型的压缩放大，对15名轻度至中度感音神经性听力损失患者的辅音感知能力进行了评估。使用了一种经过特殊改装的助听器，它可以分三步改变放大器的输入/输出功能，从而将压缩比设置为1（线性）、1.3或1.8。通过该助听器在安静环境以及两种不同噪声条件下（四语者嘈杂声和带有尖锐间歇性声音的背景噪声）录制无意义音节测试（NST），并通过耳机播放给听众。在安静条件下，不同类型的放大方式之间未发现辅音感知存在差异。在嘈杂声条件下，线性放大时的辅音感知明显优于任何一种压缩形式。在尖锐噪声条件下，线性放大与压缩比为1.8的压缩放大之间的表现没有差异。然而，在这种条件下，压缩比为1.3的压缩放大对辅音感知产生了不利影响。文中讨论了总体NST结果以及特定辅音类别的结果。
