A novel signal-processing strategy for hearing-aid design: Neurocompensation

Signal Processing

Volumn 84, Issue 7, 2004, Pages 1239-1253

  Bondy, Jeff ^a   Becker, Sue ^a   Bruce, Ian ^a   Trainor, Laurel ^a   Haykin, Simon ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Hearing aids; Sensorineural impairment; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

AUDITION; CELLS; DECODING; HEARING AIDS; HEURISTIC METHODS; NEUROLOGY; SPEECH ANALYSIS;

AUDIOGRAMS; HEARING IMPAIRED SUBJECTS; SENSORINEURAL IMPAIRMENT; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

SIGNAL PROCESSING;

EID: 2642549847     PISSN: 01651684     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2004.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. D.V. Anderson, Model based development of a hearing aid, Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, April 1994.
2. Anderson D.V., Harris R.W., Chabries D. Evaluation of a hearing compensation algorithm. IEEE. ASSP-95:May 1995;3531-3533.
3. ANSI, ANSI S3.5-1997, Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index, American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997.
4. S. Becker, I.C. Bruce, Neural coding in the auditory periphery: insights from physiology and modeling lead to a novel hearing compensation algorithm, in: Workshop on Neural Information Coding, Les Houches France, March 2002.
5. A. Bia, Alopex-b: a new, simpler but yet faster version of the alopex training algorithm (Special Issue on Non-gradient Optimization Methods), Internat. J. Neural Systems (2001) 497-507.
6. J. Bondy, I.C. Bruce, S. Becker, S. Haykin, Predicting speech intelligibility from a population of neurons, in: S. Thrun, L. Saul, B. Schoelkopf (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 16, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.
7. Brooks D. Gain requirements of hearing aid users. Scand. Audiol. 2:1973;199.
8. I.C. Bruce, J. Bondy, S. Haykin, S. Becker, A physiologically based predictor of speech intelligibility, in: International Conference on Hearing Aid Research, Lake Tahoe, CA, August 2002.
9. Bruce I.C., Sachs M.B., Young E.D. An auditory-periphery model of the effects of acoustic trauma on auditory nerve responses. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 113(1):2003;369-388.
10. I.C. Bruce, E. Young, M. Sachs, Modification of an auditory periphery model to describe the effects of acoustic trauma on auditory nerve response, in: 22nd Annual ARO Mid-winter Meeting, St. Petersburg Beach, FL, 1999.
11. Byrne D., Dillon H. The national acoustic laboratories' (nal) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hearing. 7:1986;257-265.
12. Byrne D., Dillon H., Ching T., Katsch R., Keisder G. Nal-nl1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids. characteristics and comparisons with other procedures J. Amer. Acad. Audiol. 12:2001;37-51.
13. Byrne D., Dillon H., Tran K., Arlinger S., Wilbraham K., Cox R., Hagerman B., Hetu R., Kei J., Lui C., Kiessling J., Kotby M., Nasser N., LePage E., Kholy W., Nakanishi Y., Oyer H., Powell R., Stephens D., Meredith R., Sirimanna T., Tavartkiladze G., Frolenkov G., Westerman S., Ludvidsen C. An international comparison of long-term average speech spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 96:1994;2108-2120.
14. Byrne D., Fifield D. Evaluation of hearing aid fittings for infants. Br. J. Audiol. 8:1974;47-54.
15. Byrne D., Parkinson A., Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hearing. 11:1990;40-49.
16. Chabries D., Anderson D., Stockham T., Christiansen R. Application of a human auditory model to lousness compensation and hearing compensation. IEEE. ASSP-95:May 1995;3527-3530.
17. Ching T., Dillon H., Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing impaired listeners. predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 103(2):1998;1128-1140.
18. Eggermont J., Komiya H. Moderate noise trauma in juvenile cats results in profound cortical topographic map changes in adulthood. Hearing Res. 142:2000;89-101.
19. Fabry D., van Tassell D. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids. J. Speech Hearing Res. 33:1990;676-689.
20. Heinz M., Zhang X., Bruce I.C., Carney L. Auditory nerve model for predicting performance limits of normal and impaired listeners. Acoust. Res. Lett. Online. 2(3):2001;91-96.
21. Julicher F., Andor D., Duke T. The physical basis of two-tone interference in hearing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;9080-9085.
22. Kates J. Toward a theory of optimal hearing aid processing. J. Rehab. Res. 30(1):1993;39-48.
23. Liberman M., Dodds L. Single-neuron labelling and chronic cochlear pathology. iii. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves. Hearing Res. 16:1984;55-74.
24. Markle D., Zaner A. The determination of 'gain requirements' of hearing aids. a new method J. Audiol. Res. 6:1966;371-377.
25. Martin F., Champlin C., Chambers J. Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J. Amer. Acad. Audiol. 9:1998;95-104.
26. Moore B. Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. 1995;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Moore B., Glasberg B. Comparison of frequency selectivity in simultaneous and forward masking for subjects with unilateral cochlear impairments. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 80:1986;93-107.
28. Moore B., Huss M., Vickers D., Glasberg B., Alcantara J. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br. J. Audiol. 34(4):2000;205-224.
29. Nobili R., Mammano F., Ashmore J. How well do we understand the cochlea? Trends Neurosci. 21:1998;159-167.
30. Rankovic C. An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J. Speech Hearing Res. 34:1991;391-402.
31. Rieke F., Warland D., de Ruyter van Steveninck R., Bialek W. Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code. 1997;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
32. O. Schwartz, E. Simoncelli, Natural sound statistics and divisive normalization in the auditory system, in: T. Leen, T. Dietterich, V. Tresp (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 13, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, pp. 166-172.
33. H. Steeneken, On measuring and predicting speech intelligibility, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1992.
34. Steeneken H., Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 67:1980;318-326.
35. Unnikrishnan K., Venugopal K. Alopex. a correlation-based learning algorithm for feedforward and recurrent neural networks Neural Comput. 6(3):May 1994;469-490.
36. van Schijndel N., Houtgast T., Festen J. Effects of degradation of intensity, time, or frequency content on speech intelligibility for normal hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 110(1):2001;529-542.
37. R. van Son, D. Binnenpoorte, H. van den Heuvel, L. Pols, The ifa corpus: a phonemically segmented dutch "open source" speech database, in: Proceedings of the Eurospeech 2001, Aalborg Denmark, September 3-7, 2001.
38. Wiener F., Ross D. The pressure distribution in the auditory canal of a progressive sound field. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 18(2):1946;401-408.
39. Zhang X., Heinz M., Bruce I.C., Carney L. A phenomenological model for the responses of auditory-nerve fibers. I, Nonlinear tuning with compression and suppression J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 109(2):2001;648-670.