• P-ISSN 0974-6846 E-ISSN 0974-5645

Indian Journal of Science and Technology


Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Year: 2020, Volume: 13, Issue: 46, Pages: 4579-4586

Original Article

Speech perception performance of Telugu speaking elderly population and number of compression channels in digital hearing aid technology

Received Date:29 October 2020, Accepted Date:30 November 2020, Published Date:22 December 2020


Background: We assessed the speech perception performance of the elderly population with hearing impairment in quiet and noisy listening environments as a function of the number of compression channels in digital hearing aids. Materials and Methods: Participants were 14 elderly individuals with hearing impairment in the age range of 65 to 70 years (M=67.35; SD=1:63). Speech recognition score (SRS) testing as a measure of speech perception was performed on each participant in quiet and +5 dB SNR listening environments with hearing aids in 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 channel settings respectively. Results: Results revealed significant difference in SRS between 2 vs 4, 2 vs 6, 2 vs 8, 2 vs 10, 2 vs 12, 4 vs 12 channel settings, and no significant difference between 4 vs 6, 4 vs 8, 4 vs 10, 4 vs 12, 6 vs 8, 6 vs 10, 6 vs 12, 8 vs 10, 8 vs 12, 10 vs 12 channel settings in quiet listening environment. Whereas in +5 dB SNR listening environment, there was significant difference in SRS between 2 vs 4, 2 vs 6, 2 v 8, 2 vs 10, 2 vs 12, 4 vs 6, 4 vs 8, 4 vs 10, 4 vs 12 channel settings, and no significant difference between 6 vs 8, 6 vs 10, 6 vs 12, 8 vs 10, 8 vs 12, 10 vs 12 channel settings. Conclusions: Participants achieved maximum speech perception benefit with hearing aids in 4 and 6 channel settings in quiet and noisy listening environments respectively. Further, it was noticed that besides greater performance in the quiet listening environment, the presence of background noise considerably degraded speech perception irrespective of channel settings.

Keywords: Hearing impairment; elderly population; speech recognition score; compression channels; digital hearing aids


  1. Pichora-Fuller MK, Souza PE. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. International Journal of Audiology. 2003;42(2):11–16. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020309074638
  2. Rooij JV, Plomp R, Orlebeke J. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1990;88(6):2611–2624. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.399981
  3. Hoppe U, Hocke T, Müller A, Hast A. Speech Perception and Information-Carrying Capacity for Hearing Aid Users of Different Ages. Audiology and Neurotology. 2016;21(Suppl. 1):16–20. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448349
  4. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. British Journal of Audiology. 1991;25(3):171–182. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03005369109079851
  5. Kuk F, Ludvigsen C, Kaulberg T. Understanding feedback and digital feedback cancellation strategies. Hearing Review. 2002;9(2):36–41.
  6. Dillon H. Hearing aids (2). Sydney, Australia. Thieme. 2012.
  7. Kuk F, Ludvigsen C, Paludan-Müller C. Improving hearing aid performance in noise. The Hearing Journal. 2002;55(4):34. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000293357.41334.07
  8. Agnew J, Thornton JM. Just noticeable and objectionable group delays in digital Hearing aids. Journal of American Academy of Audiology. 2000;11:330–336.
  9. Gates G, Cooper JC, Kannel WB, Miller NJ. Hearing in the elderly: The Framingham cohort, 1983-1985: Part I: Basic audiometric test results. Ear and Hearing. 1990;11:247–256.
  10. Mazurek B, Stover T, Haupt H, Gross J, Szczepek A. Pathogenesis and treatment of presbycusis. Current status and future perspectives. HNO. 2008;56(4):429–435.
  11. Galster J, Galster EA. The value of increasing the number of channels and bands in a hearing aid. AudiologyOnline.com. 2011. Available from: https://cutt.ly/hhHI8lj
  12. Mandke K, Deshpande R. Audiology services in India. Perspectives on Global Issues in Communication Sciences and Related Disorders. 2011;1:21–26. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1044/gics1.1.21
  13. Kumar SBR, Mohanty P. Speech recognition performance by adults: A proposal for a battery for Telugu. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2012;2(2):193–204.
  14. Aahz H, Moore BCJ. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007;18:653–664.
  15. Woods WS, Tasell DJV, Rickert ME, Trine TD. SII and fit-to-target analysis of compression system performance as a function of number of compression channels. International Journal of Audiology. 2006;45(11):630–644. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020600937188
  16. Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1998;104(6):3586–3596. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.423941
  17. Turner CW, Gantz BJ, Reiss L. Integration of Acoustic and Electrical Hearing. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2008;45(5):769–778.
  18. Yund EW, Buckles KM. Multichannel compression hearing aids: Effect of number of channels on speech discrimination in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1995;97(2):1206–1223. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.413093
  19. Guediche S, Blumstein SE, Fiez JA, Holt LL. Speech perception under adverse conditions: insights from behavioral, computational, and neuroscience research. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2014;7. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00126
  20. Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006;103(49):18866–18869. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607364103
  21. Peelle JE, Wingfield A. The Neural Consequences of Age-Related Hearing Loss. Trends in Neurosciences. 2016;39(7):486–497. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2016.05.001
  22. Heald SLM, Nusbaum HC. Speech perception as an active cognitive process. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2014;8:35. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00035
  23. Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. The Need for and Development of an Adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE™) Program. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2006;17(08):538–558. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17.8.2
  24. Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Training changes processing of speech cues in older adults with hearing loss. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. 2013;7:97. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00097
  25. Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DPA, Moore DR. Benefits of Phoneme Discrimination Training in a Randomized Controlled Trial of 50- to 74-Year-Olds With Mild Hearing Loss. Ear and Hearing. 2014;35(4):e110–e121. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000020
  26. Kumar SBR, Varudhini SK, Ravichandran A. Speech identification test in Telugu: Considerations for sloping high frequency hearing loss. International Journal of Speech and Language Pathology and Audiology. 2016;4:63–73.


© 2020 Rathna Kumar et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Published By Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee)


Subscribe now for latest articles and news.