{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02202123476209202, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001966181675186787, 'mean_word_length': 5.312655086848635, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Digital Filterbank Hearing Aid: Three Digital Signal Processing Algorithms‐User Preference and Performance

Objective: Three digital signal processing algorithms named RangeEar, DynEar, and LinEar were compared with regard to user preference and performance when a wearable digital filterbank hearing aid was used. All three algorithms provided individual frequency shaping via a seven‐band filterbank. Compression was used in a low‐frequency (LF) and a high‐frequency (HF) channel. RangeEar and DynEar used wide dynamic range syllabic compression in the LF channel, whereas LinEar used compression limiting. In the HF channel, RangeEar used a slow acting automatic volume control, whereas DynEar and LinEar used compression limiting. The subjects had access to a manual volume control when using the LinEar or DynEar options. Design: The study included 13 hearing aid users with symmetrical sensorineural losses. In a 1 mo long blind field test, the RangeEar algorithm was compared with the preferred algorithm from an earlier study, DynEar or LinEar. A data logger function was included for objective recording of the total time each algorithm was used and how the volume controls were used. The preference was based on the time used for each algorithm and from subjective statements. Threshold signal‐to‐noise ratio (S/N‐threshold) for speech was tested, and sound quality ratings were obtained through a questionnaire. Results: Of the 13 subjects, six preferred the RangeEar fitting and another four preferred the DynEar fitting. Two subjects preferred the LinEar fitting and one had equal preference for RangeEar and LinEar. The results from the questionnaire showed that the preferred fittings were rated higher concerning overall impression of sound quality and clearness, whereas the S/N for the speech test did not show any differences. Preferences, where stated, could be predicted from auditory dynamic range measurements in the LF and HF frequency ranges. The mean dynamic range was broader for low and narrower for high frequencies for those who preferred the RangeEar or DynEar fitting as compared with those who preferred the LinEar fitting. The preference between RangeEar and DynEar was predicted by differences in the HF range, with the narrower dynamic range for the DynEar preference subjects. Conclusion: Most subjects preferred the option of having a wide dynamic range syllabic compressor in the LF channel and having the overall gain in the HF channel adjustable, either manually (DynEar) or automatically (RangeEar).