Article/Report  |   June 2008
Factors Affecting the Benefits of High-Frequency Amplification
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Amy R. Horwitz
    Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
  • Jayne B. Ahlstrom
    Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
  • Judy R. Dubno
    Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
  • Contact author: Amy R. Horwitz, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Rutledge Avenue, MSC 550, Charleston, SC 29425-5500. E-mail: horwitar@musc.edu.
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Hearing
Article/Report   |   June 2008
Factors Affecting the Benefits of High-Frequency Amplification
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 2008, Vol.51, 798-813. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/057)
History: Accepted 17 Oct 2007 , Received 28 Mar 2007
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 2008, Vol.51, 798-813. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/057)
History: Accepted 17 Oct 2007 , Received 28 Mar 2007

Purpose: This study was designed to determine the extent to which high-frequency amplification helped or hindered speech recognition as a function of hearing loss, gain-frequency response, and background noise.

Method: Speech recognition was measured monaurally under headphones for nonsense syllables low-pass filtered in one-third-octave steps between 2.2 and 5.6 kHz. Adults with normal hearing and with high-frequency thresholds ranging from 40 to 80 dB HL listened to speech in quiet processed with an identical “nonindividualized” gain-frequency response. Hearing-impaired participants also listened to speech in quiet and noise processed with gain-frequency responses individually prescribed according to the National Acoustic Laboratories–Revised (NAL-R) formula.

Results: Mean speech recognition generally increased significantly with additional high-frequency speech bands. The one exception was that hearing-impaired participants’ recognition of speech processed by the nonindividualized response did not improve significantly with the addition of the highest frequency band. Significantly larger increases in scores with increasing bandwidth were observed for speech in noise than quiet.

Conclusions: Given that decreases in scores with additional high-frequency speech bands for individual participants were relatively small and few and did not increase with quiet thresholds, no evidence of a degree of hearing loss was found above which it was counterproductive to provide amplification.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Contribution of High Frequencies to Speech Recognition in Quiet and Noise in Listeners With Varying Degrees of High-Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2007, Vol.50, 819-834. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/057)
Coordinator’s Column
SIG 6 Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics February 2009, Vol.13, 2-3. doi:10.1044/hhd13.1.2
The Effects of High-Frequency Amplification on the Objective and Subjective Performance of Hearing Instrument Users With Varying Degrees of High-Frequency Hearing Loss
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 2006, Vol.49, 616-627. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/044)
A Psychophysical Evaluation of Spectral Enhancement
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2005, Vol.48, 1121-1135. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2005/079)
Effect of Compression Ratio on Speech Recognition and Speech-Quality Ratings With Wide Dynamic Range Compression Amplification
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2000, Vol.43, 456-468. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4302.456