We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comment on our study (Ohlenforst et al. 2016). The issue of concern to the letter writer, “The speech and the noise signals were separately compressed before the SNRs [signal-to-noise ratios] were computed based on the signal’s root mean square values.” referred to a calibration process in which the compressor gain function, derived from the mixed signal, was applied separately to the speech signal and to the separate noise signals to quantify the output signal to noise ratio. This was done to investigate compressor functionality. However, to create the test stimuli presented to the participants, the compressor was applied to the mixed speech-plus-noise signal at a specified input signal to noise ratio (−4, −2, and 0 dB), not on the speech signal or the noise signals alone. That is, the actual stimulus processing was all done on the mixed speech-plus-noise signal, which we believe to be the method that best represents realistic hearing aid situations. We regret the confusion that this inadvertent omission has caused and would like to thank Dr. Leijon for bringing the issue to our attention.
Ohlenforst, B., Souza, P. E., & MacDonald, E. N. (2017). Response to Comment: RE: Ohlenforst et al. (2016) Exploring the Relationship Between Working Memory, Compressor Speed, and Background Noise Characteristics, Ear Hear 37, 137–143. Ear and hearing, 38(5), 644-645. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000468