Processing the Telephone Speech Signal for the Hearing Impaired

ABSTRACTSpeech intelligibility scores from 16 subjects with senso-rineural hearing loss were evaluated using a digitized version of the California Consonant Test that was presented via headphones through a 300 to 3000 Hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone band. Each subject was tested with an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ear and hearing 1992-04, Vol.13 (2), p.70-79
Hauptverfasser: Terry, Mark, Bright, Kathryn, Durian, Mike, Kepler, Laura, Sweetman, Richard, Grim, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACTSpeech intelligibility scores from 16 subjects with senso-rineural hearing loss were evaluated using a digitized version of the California Consonant Test that was presented via headphones through a 300 to 3000 Hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone band. Each subject was tested with an unprocessed signal that was frequency-equalized to compensate for the individualʼs hearing loss, and a signal that was equalized and compressed by the use of a compressor compression technique. Subjects were tested at three sound pressure levels above a pure-tone average threshold for frequencies 1 and 2 kHz. Two digital signal processing techniques designed to compensate for high-frequency hearing loss were examinedfrequency domain processing and time domain processing. Frequency domain involved modification of the short-term spectrum obtained through a fast Fourier transform, whereas time domain processing involved passing the signal through a bank of finite impulse response filters. Both techniques showed significant intelligibility improvements (15-3070). In a second experiment, 16 additional subjects with high-frequency hearing loss compared an amplified telephone signal to three processed signals(1) 6 dB per octave emphasis; (2) a signal frequency equalized for their hearing loss; and (3) a signal that was equalized for their hearing loss and was compressed according to their uncomfortable loudness levels. Most subjects preferred the signal with the 6 dB per octave emphasis.
ISSN:0196-0202
1538-4667
DOI:10.1097/00003446-199204000-00002