Evaluation of an auditory masked threshold noise suppression algorithm in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Speech Communication

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 575-592

  Arehart, Kathryn Hoberg ^a   Hansen, John H L ^a   Gallant, Stephen ^a   Kalstein, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory masked threshold; Hearing aids; Hearing loss; Noise suppression; Speech intelligibility; Speech quality

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; HEARING AIDS; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PROCESSING;

AUDITORY MASKED THRESHOLD;

NOISE ABATEMENT;

EID: 0037850984     PISSN: 01676393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00183-8     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1989. Specification for audiometers. ANSI S3.6. New York: ANSI.
2. Baer T., Moore B.C.J. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 95:1994;2270-2280.
3. Boll S.F. Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 39:1979;795-805.
4. Byrne D., Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear. 7:1986;257-265.
5. Cappa O. Elimination of the musical noise phenomenon with the Ephraim and Malah noise suppressor. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2:1994;345-349.
6. Clarkson P., Bahgat S. Envelope expansion methods for speech enhancement. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 89:1989;1378-1382.
7. Dubno J.R., Dirks D.D. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a nonsense-syllable test. I. Test reliability. J. Speech Hear. Res. 25:1982;135-141.
8. Duggirala V., Studebaker G.A., Pavlovic C.V., Sherbecoe R.L. Frequency importance functions for a feature recognition test material. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 83:1988;2372-2382.
9. Duquesnoy A.J. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 74:1983;739-743.
10. Elberling C., Ludvigsen C., Keidser G. The design and testing of a noise reduction algorithm based on spectral subtraction. Scandinavian Audiol. (Suppl. 38):1993;39-49.
11. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 73:1983;652-662.
12. Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 88:1990;1725-1736.
13. Gabrielsson A., Hagerman B., Bech-Kristensen T., Lundberg G. Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency and sound levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 88:1990;1359-1366.
14. Gabrielsson A., Schenkman B.N., Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses and sound levels. J. Speech Hear. Res. 31:1988;166-177.
15. Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C.J. Psychoacoustic abilities of subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments and their relationship to the ability to understand speech. Scandinavian Audiol. (Suppl. 32):1989;1-25.
16. Hansen J.H.L., Arslan L. Robust feature estimation and objective quality assessment for noisy speech recognition using the credit card corpus. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 3:1995;169-184.
17. Hansen J.H.L., Clements M.A. Constrained iterative speech enhancement with application to speech recognition. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 39:1991;795-805.
18. Hansen J.H.L., Nandkumar S. Robust estimation of speech in noisy backgrounds based on aspects of the auditory process. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 97:1995;3833-3849.
19. Hansen, J.H.L., 1999. Speech enhancement. Chapter in Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 159-175.
20. Hou Z., Pavlovic C.V. Effects of temporal smearing on temporal resolution, frequency selectivity, and speech intelligibility. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 96:1994;1325-1340.
21. Humes L.E., Dirks D.D., Kincaid G.E. Recognition of nonsense syllables by hearing-impaired listeners and by noise-masked normal listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 81:1987;765-773.
22. Hygge S., Ronnberg J., Larsby B., Arlinger S. Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech and noise backgrounds. J. Speech Hear. Res. 35:1992;208-215.
23. Jamieson D.G., Brennan R.L., Cornelisse L.E. Evaluation of a speech enhancement strategy with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear. 16:1995;274-286.
24. Johnston J.D. Transform coding of audio signals using perceptual noise criteria. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 6:1988;314-323.
25. Larson V.D., Williams D.W., Henderson W.G., Luethke L.E., Beck L.B., Noffsinger D., Wilson R.H., Dobie R.A., Haskell G.B., Bratt G.W., Shanks J.E., Stelmachowicz P., Studebaker G.A., Boysen A.E., Donahue A., Canalis R., Fausti S.A., Rappaport B.Z. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits - a crossover trial. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 284:2000;1806-1813.
26. Levitt H., Bakke M., Kates J., Neuman A., Schwander T., Weiss M. Signal processing for hearing impairment. Scandinavian Audiol. (Suppl. 93):1993;7-19.
27. Moore B.C.J. Cochlear Hearing Loss. 1998;Whurr Publishers, London.
28. Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R., Vickers D.A. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Brit. J. Audiol. 29:1995;131-143.
29. Mueller G. Patient benefit: What's the digital difference? Hear. J. 53:2000;27-32.
30. Nandkumar S., Hansen J.H.L. Dual-channel iterative speech enhancement with constraints based on an auditory spectrum. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 3:1995;22-34.
31. Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Mackersie C., Hellman S., Levitt H. The effect of compression ratio and release time on the categorical rating of sound quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 103:1998;2273-2281.
32. Nilsson M., Soli S.D., Sullivan J.A. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 95:1994;1085-1099.
33. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J. Speech Hear. Res. 29:1986;146-154.
34. Resnick S.B., Dubno J.R., Hoffnung S., Levitt H. Phoneme errors on a nonsense syllable test. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 58(Suppl. 1):1975;114.
35. Schroeder M.R., Atal B.S., Hall J.L. Optimizing digital speech coders by exploiting masking properties of the human ear. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 66:1979;1647-1652.
36. Tsoukalas D.E., Mourjopoulos J.N., Kokkinakis G. Speech enhancement based on audible noise suppression. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 5(6):1997;497-513.
37. Van Rooj J.C., Plomp R. Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II: Multivariate analyses. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88:1990;2611-2624.
38. Virag N. Single channel speech enhancement based on masking properties of the human auditory system. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 7:1999;1-382.
39. Voiers W.D. Evaluating processed speech using the diagnostic rhyme test. Speech Technol. 1:1983;30-39.
40. Wang D.L., Lim J.S. The unimportance of phase in speech enhancement. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 30(4):1982;679-681.
41. Zurek P.M., Delhourne L.A. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 82:1987;1548-1559.