From the Journals: Wide Dynamic Range Compression Improves Speech Recognition In a systematic review, researchers found moderate evidence suggesting that audibility is improved, and speech recognition either maintained or improved, when a wide range of sounds is compressed into a narrower range, as compared with simply making the sounds louder. The study, published in the December ... From the Journals
From the Journals  |   August 01, 2013
From the Journals: Wide Dynamic Range Compression Improves Speech Recognition
Author Notes
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / From the Journals
From the Journals   |   August 01, 2013
From the Journals: Wide Dynamic Range Compression Improves Speech Recognition
The ASHA Leader, August 2013, Vol. 18, 37. doi:10.1044/leader.FTJ4.18082013.37
The ASHA Leader, August 2013, Vol. 18, 37. doi:10.1044/leader.FTJ4.18082013.37
In a systematic review, researchers found moderate evidence suggesting that audibility is improved, and speech recognition either maintained or improved, when a wide range of sounds is compressed into a narrower range, as compared with simply making the sounds louder. The study, published in the December 2012 issue of the American Journal of Audiology, found significant differences between compression limiting and peak clipping on outcomes—that is, speech recognition and self- or parent report—reported across the review.
Researchers developed two clinical questions. One addressed the comparison of linear amplification with compression limiting (reducing peaks in sound by compressing the signal) to linear amplification with peak clipping (reducing peaks by limiting the maximum sound level). The second compared wide dynamic range compression with linear amplification for outcomes of audibility, speech recognition, speech and language, and self- or parent report in children with hearing loss.
Researchers systematically searched 26 databases for studies addressing a clinical question and meeting all inclusion criteria. They evaluated studies for methodological quality, and effect sizes were reported or calculated when possible. The search yielded eight studies. All eight studies included comparisons of wide dynamic range compression to linear amplification, and two of the eight provided comparisons of compression limiting versus peak clipping. Researchers warn that further research is needed before conclusions can be drawn confidently.
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment
Name
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account ×
FROM THIS ISSUE
August 2013
Volume 18, Issue 8