Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Volumn 132, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1718-1731

  Fink, Nir ^a   Furst, Miriam ^a   Muchnik, Chava ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC SIGNALS; ASSISTIVE DEVICES; BACKGROUND NOISE; COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS; HEARING IMPAIRED; HEARING-IMPAIRED LISTENERS; MONOSYLLABIC WORDS; NOISE REDUCTION ALGORITHMS; NOISY ENVIRONMENT; SINGLE-CHANNEL; SINGLE-CHANNEL ALGORITHMS; WORD RECOGNITION;

ALGORITHMS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; GAUSSIAN NOISE (ELECTRONIC); SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

AUDITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPREHENSION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PATIENT; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; RECOGNITION; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMPREHENSION; CORRECTION OF HEARING IMPAIRMENT; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866287807     PISSN: 00014966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1121/1.4739441     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson, M. C., Arehart, K. H., and Kates, J. M. (2009). The acoustic and perceptual effects of series and parallel processing., EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2009, 619805. 10.1155/2009/619805
2. Bentler, R., and Chiou, L. K. (2006). Digital noise reduction: An overview., Trends Amplif. 10 (2), 67-82.
3. Bentler, R., Wu, Y. H., Kettel, J., and Hurtig, R. (2008). Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies., Int. J. Audiol. 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 Process. 27, 113-120. 10.1109/TASSP.1979.1163209
5. Boothroyd, A. (1968a). Developments in speech audiometry., Br. J. Audiom. 2, 3-10. 10.3109/00381796809075436
6. Boothroyd, A. (1968b). Statistical theories of the speech discrimination score., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43, 362-367. 10.1121/1.1910787
7. Brungart, D., Chang, P., Simpson, B., and Wang, D. (2006). Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 4007-4018. 10.1121/1.2363929
8. Cohen, A., and Furst, M. (2004). Integration of outer hair cell activity in a one-dimensional cochlear model., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2185-2192. 10.1121/1.1699391
9. Cohen, I., and Berdugo, B. (2002). Noise estimation by minima controlled recursive averaging for robust speech enhancement., IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 9, 12-15. 10.1109/97.988717
10. Ephraim, Y., and Malah, D. (1984). Speech enhancement using a- minimum mean-square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator., IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. 32, 1109-1121. 10.1109/TASSP.1984.1164453
11. Ephraim, Y., and Van Trees H. L. (1995). A signal subspace approach for speech enhancement., IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 3, 251-266. 10.1109/89.397090
12. Fink, N., Furst, M., Goshen, T., Cohen, A., and Weiss, V. (2004). Evaluation of a reconstruction algorithm for a comprehensive cochlear model-preliminary report., Conference and Workshop on Assistive Technologies for Vision and Hearing Impairment (CVHI), Granada, Spain (June 28 to July 3, 2004).
13. Franck, B., van Kreveld-Bos, C., Dreschler, W., and Verschuure, H. (1999). Evaluation of spectral enhancement in hearing aids, combined with phonemic compression., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 1452-1464. 10.1121/1.428055
14. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V. Baskent, D., and Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1150-1163. 10.1121/1.1381538
15. Furst-Yust, M., Cohen, A., and Weiss, V. (2008). Method apparatus and system for processing acoustic signal, U.S. patent 7,366,656.
16. Goodman, A. (1965). Reference zero levels for pure-tone audiometers., Asha 7, 262-263.
17. Gustafsson, H., Nordholm, S., and Claesson, I. (2001). Spectral subtraction using reduced delay convolution and adaptive averaging., IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 9, 799-807. 10.1109/89.966083
18. Hant, J. J., and Alwan, A. (2000). Predicting the perceptual confusion of synthetic stop consonants in noise., ICSLP 3, 941-944.
19. Hochberg, I., Boothroyd, A., Weiss, M., and Hellman, S. (1992). Effect of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users., Ear Hear. 13 (4), 263-271. 10.1097/00003446-199208000-00008
20. Holdsworth, J., Nimmo-Smith, I., Patterson, R. D., and Rice, P. (1988). Implementing a gammatone filterbank., SVOS Final Report, Part B, Report No. 2341, MRC Applied Psychology Unit.
21. Hopkins, K., and Moore, B. C. J. (2011). The effects of age and cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and speech reception in noise., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 (1), 334-349. 10.1121/1.3585848
22. Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. C. (2004). Speech enhancement based on wavelet thresholding the multitaper spectrum., IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 12, 59-67. 10.1109/TSA.2003.819949
23. Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. C. (2007). A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122 (3), 1777-1786. 10.1121/1.2766778
24. Hu, Y., and Loizou, P. C. (2010). Environment-specific noise suppression for improved speech intelligibility by cochlear implant users., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127 (6), 3689-3695. 10.1121/1.3365256
25. Jabloun, F., and Champagne, B. (2003). Incorporating the human hearing properties in the signal subspace approach for speech enhancement., IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 11, 700-708. 10.1109/TSA.2003.818031
26. 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, 1486-1494. 10.1121/1.3184603
27. Kishon-Rabin, L., Patael, S., Menahemi, M., and Amir, N. (2004). Are the perceptual effects of spectral smearing influenced by speaker gender? J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 15 (1-2), 41-55. 10.1515/JBCPP.2004.15.1-2.41
28. Kochkin, S. (2000). MarkeTrak V: Why my hearing aids are in the drawer: The consumer's perspective., Hear. J. 53, 34-42.
29. Kochkin, S. (2009). MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market., Hear. Rev. 16, 12-31.
30. Levitt, H. (2001). Noise reduction in hearing aids: a review., J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 38, 111-121.
31. Li, N., and Loizou, P. (2008). Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: Implications for noise reduction., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 1673-1682. 10.1121/1.2832617
32. Lim, J. S. (1978). Evaluation of a correlation subtraction method for enhancing speech degraded by additive white noise., IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. 26, 471-472. 10.1109/TASSP.1978.1163129
33. Loizou, P., and Kim, G. (2011). Reasons why current speech-enhancement algorithms do not improve speech intelligibility and suggested solutions., IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech Lang. Process. 19 (1), 47-56. 10.1109/TASL.2010.2045180
34. Loizou, P., Lobo, A., and Hu, Y. (2005). Subspace algorithms for noise reduction in cochlear implants., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 2791-2793. 10.1121/1.2065847
35. Luts, H., Eneman, K., Wouters, J., Schulte, M., Vormann, M., Buechler, M., Dillier, N., Houben, R., Dreschler, W. A., Frohelich, M., Puder, H., Grimm, G., Hohmann, V., Leijon, A., Lombard, A., Mauler, D., and Spriet, A. (2010). Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 1491-1505. 10.1121/1.3299168
36. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., and Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test material., J. Ex. Psych. 41, 329-335. 10.1037/h0062491
37. Moore, B. C. J. (2003). Speech processing for the hearing-impaired: Successes, failures, and implications for speech mechanisms., Speech Commun. 41, 81-91. 10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00095-X
38. Moore, B. C. J. (2008). The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people., J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 9, 399-406. 10.1007/s10162-008-0143-x
39. Moore, B. C. J., Peters, R. W., and Stone, N. A. (1999). Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 400-411. 10.1121/1.424571
40. Nelson, P. B., Jin, S., Carney, A. E., and Nelson, D. A. (2003). Understanding speech in modulated interference: Cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 961-968. 10.1121/1.1531983
41. Nie, K., Barco, A., and Zeng, F. (2006). Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception., Ear Hear. 27, 208-217. 10.1097/01.aud. 0000202312.31837.25
42. Oxenham, A. J. (2008). Pitch perception and auditory stream segregation: Implications for hearing loss and cochlear implants., Trends Amplif. 12, 316-331. 10.1177/1084713808325881
43. Patterson, R. D., Holdsworth, J., Nimmo-Smith, I., and Rice, P. (1988). Implementing a gammatone filter bank, Annex C of the SVOS Final Report (Part A: The Auditory Filter Bank).
44. Plomp, R., and Mimpen, A. M. (1979). Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 1335-1342. 10.1121/1.383554
45. Qin, M. K., and Oxenham, A. J. (2003). Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 446-454. 10.1121/1.1579009
46. Scalart, P., and Filho, J. (1996). Speech enhancement based on a priori signal to noise estimation., in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Processing, Atlanta, GA, pp. 629-632.
47. Schafer, E. C., and Thibodeau, L. M. (2004). Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems., J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 15, 678-691. 10.3766/jaaa.15.10.3
48. Stickney, G. S., Zeng, F., Lithovsky, R., and Assmann, P. (2004). Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 1081-1091. 10.1121/1.1772399
49. Weisz, V. (2004). Robust cochlear based representation of speech signals: Comparison between healthy and damaged cochlea., MSc. thesis, University of Tel-Aviv, Israel.
50. Wilson, B. (2003). Digital signal processing applications for hearing accessibility., IEEE Signal Process. Mag. September, 14-18. 10.1109/MSP.2003. 1236769
51. Wilson, R. H., and McArdle, R. (2005). Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system., J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 42, 79-93. 10.1682/JRRD.2005.06.0096
52. Wilson, R. H., McArdle, R. and Smith, S. L. (2007). An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss., J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 50, 844-856. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/059)
53. Zeng, F. G., Nie, K., Liu, D., Stickney, G. Del Rio, E., Kong, Y. Y., and Chen, H. (2004). On the dichotomy in auditory perception between temporal envelope and fine structure cues (L)., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 1351-1354. 10.1121/1.1777938
54. Zhao, F., Stephens, S. D. G., Sim, S. W., and Meredith, R. (1997). The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants., Clin. Otolaryngol. 22 (3), 254-2597. 10.1046/j.1365-2273. 1997.00036.x