Extending the articulation index to account for non-linear distortions introduced by noise-suppression algorithms

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Volumn 130, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 986-995

  Loizou, Philipos C ^a   Ma, Jianfen ^b  

^a The University of Texas at Dallas   (United States)

^b TAIYUAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICULATION INDEXES; EFFECTIVE SNR; INTELLIGIBILITY SCORES; NON-LINEAR; NONLINEAR PROCESSING; NORMAL-HEARING LISTENERS; TARGET SIGNALS;

DIGITAL FILTERS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY;

AUDITION;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; HUMAN; NOISE; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PERCEPTION; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; HUMANS; NOISE; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 80052488153     PISSN: 00014966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1121/1.3605668     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Amlani, A., Punch, J., and Ching, T. (2002). Methods and applications of the audibility index in hearing aid selections and fitting., Trends Ampl. 6, 81-129. 10.1177/108471380200600302
2. ANSI S3.5-1997 (1997). Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index., (American National Standards Institute, NY).
3. Bentler, R., Wu, Y., Kettel, J., and Hurtig, R. (2008). Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies., Intern. J. Audiology 47, 447-460. 10.1080/14992020802033091
4. Boll, S. F. (1979). Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction., IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Proc., 27 (2), 113-120. 10.1109/TASSP.1979.1163209
5. Chung, K. (2004). Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids: Part, I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms., Trends. Amplif. 8, 83-124. 10.1177/108471380400800302 (Pubitemid 40171173)
6. Dubbelboer, F., and Houtgast, T. (2008). The concept of signal-to-noise ratio in the modulation domain and speech intelligibility., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 3937-3946. 10.1121/1.3001713
7. Fletcher, H., and Galt, R. H. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22, 89-151. 10.1121/1.1906605
8. French, N. R., and Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19, 90-119. 10.1121/1.1916407
9. Goldsworthy, R., and Greenberg, J. (2004). Analysis of speech-based speech transmission index methods with implications for nonlinear operations., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3679-3689. 10.1121/1.1804628 (Pubitemid 40029948)
10. Hirsch, H., and Pearce, D. (2000). The aurora experimental framework for the performance evaluation of speech recognition systems under noisy conditions., in ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop ASR2000 (ISCA, Paris, France).
11. Hohmann, V., and Kollmeier, B. (1995). The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 1191-1195. 10.1121/1.413092
12. Houtgast, T., and Steeneken, H. (1985). A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77, 1069-1077. 10.1121/1.392224
13. Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. C. (2007). A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1777-1786. 10.1121/1.2766778 (Pubitemid 47560539)
14. Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. (2008). A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants., J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124 (1), 498-509. 10.1121/1.2924131 (Pubitemid 352019339)
15. IEEE (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements., IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 225-246. 10.1109/TAU.1969.1162058
16. Kates, J. (1987). The short-time articulation index., J. Rehab. Res. Develop. 24, 271-276. (Pubitemid 18020097)
17. Kates, J. (1992). On using coherence to measure distortion in hearing aids., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 2236-2244. 10.1121/1.403657
18. Kates, J., and Arehart, K. (2005). Coherence and the speech intelligibility index., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2224-2237. 10.1121/1.1862575 (Pubitemid 40570480)
19. Kates, J. (2010). Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids., Int. J. Audiol. 49 (6), 395-409. 10.3109/14992020903426256
20. Kim, G., Lu, Y., Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. (2009). An algorithm that improves speech intelligibility in noise for normal-hearing listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126 (3), 1486-1494. 10.1121/1.3184603
21. Kryter, K. D. (1962a). Methods for the calculation and use of the articulation index., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 1689-1697. 10.1121/1.1909094
22. Kryter, K. D. (1962b). Validation of the articulation index., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 1698-1706. 10.1121/1.1909096
23. Levitt, H. (1997). Digital hearing aids: Past, present and future, in Practical Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting, edited by, H. Tobin, pp. xi-xxiii (Department of Veteran Affairs, Washington, DC).
24. Liberman, A., Delattre, P., and Cooper, F. The role of selected stimulus variables in the perception of unvoiced stop consonants., Am. J. Psychol. 65, 497-516 (1952). 10.2307/1418032
25. Loizou, P. (2007). Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice (CRC, Boca Raton, FL), pp. 560-570.
26. Loizou, P., and Kim, G. (2011). Reasons why current speech enhancement algorithms do not improve speech intelligibility and suggested solutions., IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Language Processing 19, 47-56. 10.1109/TASL.2010.2045180
27. Ludvigsen, C., Elberling, C., and Keidser, G. (1993). Evaluation of a noise reduction method-Comparison of observed scores and scores predicted from STI., Scand. Audiol. Suppl. 38, 50-55. (Pubitemid 23362792)
28. Ma, J., Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. (2009). Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 3387-3405. 10.1121/1.3097493
29. Parikh, G., and Loizou, P. (2005). The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 3874-3888. 10.1121/1.2118407 (Pubitemid 41820886)
30. Pavlovic, C. V. (1987). Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 413-422. 10.1121/1.395442
31. Rhebergen, K. S., and Versfeld, N. J. (2005). A speech intelligibility index-based approach to predict the speech reception threshold for sentences in fluctuating noise for normal-hearing listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2181-2192. 10.1121/1.1861713 (Pubitemid 40570476)
32. Rhebergen, K. S., Versfeld, N. J., and Dreschler, W. (2006). Extended speech intelligibility index for the prediction of the speech reception threshold in fluctuating noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 3988-3997. 10.1121/1.2358008 (Pubitemid 44888094)
33. Stelmachowicz, P., Dalzell, S., Peterson, D., Kopun, J., Lewis, D., and Hoover, B. E. (1998). A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids., Ear Hear. 19, 131-138. 10.1097/00003446-199804000-00005 (Pubitemid 28164982)
34. Steeneken, H., and Houtgast, T. (1980). A physical method for measuring speech transmission quality., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 318-326. 10.1121/1.384464 (Pubitemid 10136600)
35. Taal, C. H., Hendriks, R. C., Heusdens, R., and Jensen, J. (2010). A short-time objective intelligibility measure for time-frequency weighted noisy speech., Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Proc. (IEEE, Dallas, TX), pp. 4214-4217.
36. Van Buuren, R., Festen, J., and Houtgast, T. (1999). Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 2903-2913. 10.1121/1.426943 (Pubitemid 29218406)