Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 47, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 447-460

  Bentler, Ruth ^a   Wu, Yu Hsiang ^a   Kettel, Jerrica ^a   Hurtig, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adults; Digital noise reduction; Field trials; Noise reduction; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; MEMORY; NOISE REDUCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SELF REPORT; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGED; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 49549093199     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14992020802033091     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alcantara, J.I., Moore, B.C., Kuhnel, V. & Launer, S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34-42.
2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1996. American National Standard Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: ANSI.
3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1996. American National Standard Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics (ANSI S3.22-1996). New York: ANSI.
4. Bentler, R.A. 2005. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: A systematic review of the evidence. J Amer Acad Audol, 16, 477-488.
5. Bentler, R.A., Anderson, C.V., Niebuhr, D. & Getta, J. 1993. A longitudinal study of noise reduction circuits. Part I: Objective measures. J Speech Hear Res, 36, 808-819.
6. Bentler, R.A. & Chiou, L-K. 2006. Digital noise reduction: An overview. Trends Amplif, 10, 67-83.
7. Bentler, R.A. & Cooley, L. 2001. An examination of several characteristics that affect the prediction of OSPL90. Ear Hear, 22, 3-20.
8. Bentler, R.A., Palmer, C. & Mueller, H.G. 2006. Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid. I: Speech perception outcomes. J Amer Acad Audiol, 17, 179-189.
9. Bilger, R.C., Neutzel, J.M., Rabinowitz, W.M. & Rzeczkowski, C. 1984. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 32-48.
10. Boymans, M. & Dreschler, W.A. 2000. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality. Audiology, 39, 260-268.
11. Bridges, J. & Bentler, R. 1998. Relating well-being to successful hearingaid use in older adults. Hear J, 51(7), 39-44.
12. Chung, K. 2004. Challenges in recent developments in hearing aids. Part 1. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies, and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif, 8, 83-124.
13. Costa P.T., Herbst J.H., McCrae R.R. 1992. NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Edessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
14. Costa, P.T., Herbst, J.H. & McCrae, R.R. 1997. Longitudinal stability in adult personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S. Briggs (eds.) Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 269-290.
15. Costa, P.T., Herbst, J.H., McCrae, R.R. & Siegler, I.C. 2000. Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic maturation, and response to life event. Assessment, 7, 365-378.
16. Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearingaid benefit (APHAB). Ear Hear, 16, 176-186.
17. Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C., Gilmore, C. & Pusakalich, K. 1988. Use of the connected speech test with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 9, 198-207.
18. Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. & Gray, G.A. 1999. Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 1-13.
19. Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. & Gray, G.A. 2005. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing-aid seekers. Ear Hear, 26, 12-26.
20. Dicarlo, L. & Kataja, R. 1951. Analysis of the Utley lip-reading test. J Speech Hear Dis, 16, 26-240.
21. Dillon, H. 1999. NAL-NL1: A new prescriptive fitting procedure for nonlinear hearing aids. Hear J, 52, 10-16.
22. Dillon, H., James, A. & Ginis, J. 1997. Client-oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 8, 27-43.
23. Erber, N.P. 1969. Interaction of audition & vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli. J Speech Hear Res, 12, 423-425.
24. Erber, N.P. 1972. Auditory, visual, & auditory-visual recognition of consonants by children with normal & impaired hearing. J Speech Hear Res, 15, 413-422.
25. Grant, K.W. 2002. Measures of auditory-visual integration for speech understanding: A theoretical perspective (L). J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 30-33.
26. Grant, K. & Seitz, P.F. 1998. Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 2438-2450.
27. Hurtig R. (in preparation). Development of a speech-in-noise test for audio-only and audio + visual use.
28. Kalikow, D.N., Stevens, K.N. & Elliot, L.I. 1977. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am, 61, 1337-1351.
29. Lovie-Kitchin, J.E 1988. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Opthal Physiol, 8, 363-370.
30. MacLeod, A. & Summerfield, Q. 1987. Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. Br J Audiol, 21(2), 131-141.
31. Massaro, D. 2004. From multisensory integration to talking heads and language learning. In G. Calvert, C. Spence & B. Stein (eds.) The Handbook of Multisensory Processes. MIT Press.
32. Massaro, D.W. & Cohen, M.M. 2000. Tests of auditory-visual integration efficiency within the framework of the fuzzy logical model of perception. J Acoust Soc Am, 108, 784-789.
33. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
34. McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. 1976. Hearing lips & seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
35. Middelweerd, M.J. & Plomp, R. 1987. The effect of speech-reading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 2145-2147.
36. Mueller, H.G., Weber, J. & Hornsby, B.W. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10, 83-93.
37. Palmer, C., Bentler, R. & Mueller, H.G. 2006a. Amplification and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends Amplif, 10, 95-104.
38. Palmer, C., Bentler, R. & Mueller, H.G. 2006b. Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: Self-report outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 190-201.
39. Reisberg, D., McLean, J. & Goldfield, A. 1987. Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd & P. Campbell (eds.) Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-reading. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 97-113.
40. Ricketts, T.A. & Hornsby, B.W.Y. 2005. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing 'digital noise reduction'. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 270-277.
41. Shua-Haim, J., Koppuzha, G., Shua-Haim, R.N. & Gross, J. 1996. A simple scoring system for clock-drawing in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Am Geriatric Soc, 44, 335-337.
42. Sumby, W.H. & Pollack, I. 1954. Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 26, 212-215.
43. Summerfield, Q. 1987. Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (eds.) Hearing by Eye: The Psychology of Lip-reading. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-51.
44. Utley, J. 1946. A test of lip-reading ability. J Speech Dis, 11, 109-116.
45. Walden, B., Surr, R., Cord, M., Edward, B. & Olson, L. 2000. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing-aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 540-560.
46. Yesavage, J.A., Brink, T.L., Rose, T.L. & Lum, O. 1983. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. J Psychiatric Res, 17, 37-49.