Cochlear implant optimized noise reduction

Journal of Neural Engineering

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Mauger, Stefan J ^a   Arora, Komal ^a,b   Dawson, Pam W ^a,b  

^a Research and Technology Labs   (Australia)

^b HEARing CRC   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BABBLE NOISE; COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS; GAIN FUNCTION; HEARING AID; LISTENING QUALITIES; NOISE ANNOYANCE; NOISE TEST; NOISE TYPES; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TEMPORAL SMOOTHING;

ACOUSTICS; AUDITION; NOISE ABATEMENT; NOISE POLLUTION; OPTIMIZATION; SPEECH;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; NOISE; NOISE REDUCTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACOUSTICS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 84871091361     PISSN: 17412560     EISSN: 17412552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/1741-2560/9/6/065007     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Buechner A, Brendel M, Saalfeld H, Litvak L, Frohne-Buechner C and Lenarz T 2010 Results of a pilot study with a signal enhancement algorithm for HiRes 120 cochlear implant users Otol. Neurotol. 31 1386-90
2. Cameron S and Dillon H 2007 Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S) Ear Hear. 28 196-211
3. Cappe O 1994 Elimination of the musical noise phenomenon with the Ephraim and Malah noise suppressor IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 2 345-9
4. Chen F and Loizou P C 2011 Predicting the intelligibility of vocoded speech Ear Hear. 32 331-8
5. Chen F and Loizou P C 2012 Impact of SNR and gain-function over- and under-estimation on speech intelligibility Speech Commun. 54 272-81
6. Chung K, Zeng F G and Waltzman S 2004 Utilizing advanced hearing aid technologies as pre-processors to enhance cochlear implant performance Cochlear Implants Int. 1 (Suppl. 5) 192-5
7. Cohen I 2003 Noise spectrum estimation in adverse environments: improved minima controlled recursive averaging IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 11 466-75
8. Dawson P W, Mauger S J and Hersbach A A 2011 Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction in nucleus cochlear-implant recipients Ear Hear. 32 382-90
9. Ephraim Y and Malah D 1994 Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. ASSP-32 1109-21
10. Gustafsson S, Jax P and Vary P 1998 A novel psychoacoustically motivated audio enhancement algorithm preserving background noise characteristics Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing vol 1, pp 397-400
11. Hersbach A A, Arora K, Mauger S J and Dawson P W 2012 Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise-reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users Ear Hear. 33 e13-e23
12. Hochberg I, Boothroyd A, Weiss M and Hellman S 1992 Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users Ear Hear. 13 263-71
13. Hu Y, Loizou P C, Li N and Kasturi K 2007 Use of a sigmoidal-shaped function for noise attenuation in cochlear implants J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122 EL128-34
14. Kim G and Loizou PC 2011 Gain-induced speech distortions and the absence of intelligibility benefit with existing noise-reduction algorithms J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 1581-96
15. Kim G, Lu Y, Hu Y and Loizou P C 2009 An algorithm that improves speech intelligibility in noise for normal-hearing listeners J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126 1486-94
16. Li N and Loizou P C 2008a Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 1673-82
17. Li N and Loizou P C 2008b A glimpsing account for the benefit of simulated combined acoustic and electric hearing J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 2287-94
18. Lim J S and Oppenheim A V 1979 Enhancement and bandwidth compression of noisy speech Proc. IEEE 67 1586-604
19. Loizou P C 2006 Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 64 109-43
20. Martin R 2001 Noise power spectral density estimation based on optimal smoothing and minimum statistics IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 9 504-12
21. Mauger S J, Dawson P W and Hersbach A A 2012 Perceptually optimised gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131 327
22. McAulay R J and Malpass M L 1980 Speech enhancement using a soft-decision noise suppression filter IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. ASSP-28 137-45
23. Patrick J F, Busby P A and Gibson P J 2006 The development of the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system Trends Amplif. 10 175-200
24. Peterson G E and Lehiste I 1962 Revised CNC lists for auditory tests J. Speech Hear. Disord. 27 62-70
25. Qin M K and Oxenham A J 2003 Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114 446-54
26. Skinner M W, Holden L K, Holden T A, Dowell R C, Seligman P M, Brimacombe J A and Beiter A L 1991 Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with theWearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant Ear Hear. 12 3-22
27. Smith Z M, Delgutte B and Oxenham A J 2002 Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception Nature 416 87-90
28. Weiss M R 1993 Effects of noise and noise reduction processing on the operation of the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant processor J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 30 117-28
29. Yang L P and Fu Q J 2005 Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for cochlear implant patients in background noise J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 1001-4