Development of a flexible, realistic hearing in noise test environment (R-HINT-E)

Signal Processing

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 299-309

  Trainor, Laurel ^a   Sonnadara, Ranil ^a   Wiklund, Karl ^a   Bondy, Jeff ^a   Gupta, Shilpy ^a   Becker, Suzanna ^a   Bruce, Ian C ^a   Haykin, Simon ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Hearing in noise; Impulse response; Sound; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NOISE; ALGORITHMS; HEARING AIDS; IMPULSE RESPONSE; INDEPENDENT COMPONENT ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MICROPHONES; PERSONNEL TESTING; REVERBERATION; SIGNAL THEORY; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH ANALYSIS; TRANSFER FUNCTIONS;

SIGNAL SEPARATION ALGORITHMS; TEMPORAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT;

AUDITION;

EID: 0347354862     PISSN: 01651684     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2003.10.013     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Arbogast T.L., Mason C.R., Y Kidd G. Jr. The effect of spatial separation on informational and energetic masking of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 112(5, Pt. 1):November 2002;2086-2098.
2. S. Becker, I. Bruce, Neural coding in the auditory periphery: insights from physiology and modelling lead to a novel hearing compensation algorithm, Workshop on Neural Information Coding, Les Houches France, March 2002 (abstract).
3. Bolia R.S., Nelson W.T., Ericson M.A. A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 107:2000;1065-1066.
4. J. Bondy, S. Becker, I.C. Bruce, L.J. Trainor, S. Haykin, A novel signal-processing strategy for hearing aid design: neurocompensation, Signal Processing (2003), submitted.
5. Bregman A.S. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Bronkhurst A.W., Plomp R. Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 86:1989;1374-1383.
7. I.C. Bruce, J. Bondy, S. Haykin, S. Becker, A physiologically based predictor of speech intelligibility, Poster Presented at the International Conference of Hearing Aid Research, Lake Tahoe, USA, 2002.
8. Brungart D.S. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 109:2001;1101-1109.
9. D.M. Chabries, D.V. Anderson, T.G. Stockham, R.W. Christiansen, Application of a human auditory model to loudness perception and hearing compensation, Proceedings of the IEEE ASSP, Detroit, USA, 1995, pp. 3527-3530.
10. C. Colomes, C. Schmidmer, T. Thiede, W.C. Treurniet, Perceptual quality assessment for digital audio (PEAQ): the proposed ITU standard for objective measurement of perceived audio quality, Proceedings of the AES Conference, Florence, Italy, 1995.
11. Duquesnoy A.J. Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source on the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 74:1983;739-743.
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. Fletcher H., Munson W.A. Loudness, its definition, measurement, and calculation. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 5:1933;82-108.
14. Greenberg J.E., Peterson P.M., Zurek P.M. Intelligibility-weighted measures of speech-to-interference ratio and speech system performance. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 94:1993;3009-3010.
15. R. Gribonval, E. Vincent, C. Fevotte, L. Benaroya, Proposals for performance measurement in source separation, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Independent Component Analysis and Blind Source Separation (ICA 2003), Nara, Japan, 2003, pp. 763-768.
16. 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 Hearing Res. 35:1992;208-215.
17. Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N., Elliott L.L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 61:1977;1337-1351.
18. Kates J.M., Weiss M.R. A comparison of hearing-aid array-processing techniques. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 99:1996;3138-3148.
19. Kochkin S. Marke Trak V: Why my hearing aids are in the drawer: the consumers' perspective. Hearing J. 53:2000;34-42.
20. Lockwood M.E., Jones D.L., Elledge M.E., Bilger R.C., Feng A.S., Goueygou M., Lansing C.R., Liu C., O'Brien W.D. Jr., Wheeler B.C. A minimum variance frequency-domain algorithm for binaural hearing aid processing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 106:1999;2278A.
21. Moore B.C.J. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. 1995;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22. Moore B.C.J., Peters R.W., Stone M.A. Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 105:1999;400-411.
23. Nilsson M.J., Soli S.D., Sullivan J. Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 95:1994;1985-1999.
24. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J. Speech Hearing Res. 29:1986;146-154.
25. Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression. considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design Ear Hearing. 15:1994;2-12.
26. D.W.E. Schobben, K. Torkkola, P. Smaragdis, Evaluation of blind signal separation methods, Proceedings of the International Workshop Independent Component Analysis and Blind Signal Separation, France, 1999, pp. 261-266.
27. Watson A.B., Pelli D.G. A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception Psychophys. 33:1983;113-120.
28. A. Westner, V. Michael Bove Jr., Applying blind source separation and deconvolution to real-world acoustic environments, Proceedings of the 106th Audio Engineering Society (AES) Convention, Munich, Germany, 1999.