Evaluation of combined dynamic compression and single channel noise reduction for hearing aid applications

References

• Anderson, M.C., Arehart, K.H. & Kates, J.M. 2009. The acoustic and perceptual effects of series and parallel processing. EURASIP J Adv Sig Proc, 1, 1–20, DOI: 10.1155/2009/619805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arehart, K.H., Hansen, J.H., Gallant, S. & Kalstein, L. 2003. Evaluation of an auditory masked threshold noise suppression algorithm in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Speech Commun, 40, 575–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgaard, N., Vlaming, M.S. & Dahlquist, M. 2010. Standard audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 measurement procedure. Trends Amplif, 14, 113–120.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brand, T. & Hohmann, V. 2002. An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1597–1604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breithaupt, C., Gerkmann, T. & Martin, R. 2008. A novel a priori SNR estimation approach based on selective cepstro-temporal smoothing. In Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP). Las Vegas: IEEE, pp. 4897–4900, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2008.4518755.
   Google Scholar
• Brons, I., Houben, R. & Dreschler, W.A. 2014a. Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 136, 1375–1384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brons, I., Houben, R. & Dreschler, W.A. 2014b. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear, 18, 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brons, I., Houben, R. & Dreschler, W.A. 2015. Acoustical and perceptual comparison of noise reduction and compression in hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 58, 1363–1376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R. & Keidser, G. 2001. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol, 12, 37–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen, Z. & Hohmann, V. 2015. Online monaural speech enhancement based on periodicity analysis and a priori SNR estimation. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 23, 1904–1916.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, K. 2007. Effective compression and noise reduction configurations for hearing protectors. J Acoust Soc Am, 121, 1090–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desjardins, J.L. & Doherty, K.A. 2014. The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear, 35, 600–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernst, S., Kortlang, S., Grimm, G., Bisitz, T., Kollmeier, B., et al. 2017. Binaural model-based dynamic compression. Int J Audiol.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ewert, S.D. & Grimm, G. 2011. Model-based hearing aid gain prescription rule. Speech perception and auditory disorders, Int. Symposium on Audiological and Auditory Research (ISAAR), Nyborg, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. & Elberling, C. 2006. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings. 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45, 130–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerkmann, T. & Hendriks, R.C. 2012. Unbiased MMSE-based noise power estimation with low complexity and low tracking delay. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 20, 1383–1393.
   Google Scholar
• Gerkmann, T. & Martin, R. 2009. On the statistics of spectral amplitudes after variance reduction by temporal cepstrum smoothing and cepstral nulling. IEEE Trans Signal Process, 57, 4165–4174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasberg, B.R. & Moore, B.C.J. 1990. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear. Res, 47, 103–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerman, B. & Olofsson, A. 2004. A method to measure the effect of noise reduction algorithms using simultaneous speech and noise. Acta Acust Acust, 90, 356–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, E.W., Yoho, S.E., Wang, Y. & Wang, D. 2013. An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 3029–3038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohmann, V. 2002. Frequency analysis and synthesis using a gammatone filterbank. Acta Acust Acust, 88, 433–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y. & Loizou, P.C. 2007a. Subjective comparison and evaluation of speech enhancement algorithms. Speech Commun, 49, 588–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y. & Loizou, P.C. 2007b. A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1777–1786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ITU-R Rec. BS.1534-2. 2014. Method for the subjective assessment of inter-mediate quality levels of audio systems. International Telecommunication Union.
   Google Scholar
• Ives, D.T., Kalluri, S., Strelcyk, O., Sheft, S., Miermont, F., et al. 2014. Effects of noise reduction on AM perception for hearing-impaired listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 15, 839–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates, J.M. 2008. Digital Hearing Aids. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kates, J.M. 2010. Understanding compression: Modeling the effects of dynamic-range compression in hearing aids. Int J Audiol, 49, 395–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatt, D.H. 1980. Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 971–995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S., Ewert, S.D. & Gerkmann, T. 2014. Single channel noise reduction based on an auditory filterbank. Proc. Int. Workshop on Acoust. Sig. Enhancement (IWAENC), 283–287, DOI: 10.1109/IWAENC.2014.6954303.
   Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S., Mauermann, M. & Ewert, S.D. 2016a. Suprathreshold auditory processing deficits in noise: Effects of hearing loss and age. Hear. Res, 331, 27–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S., Grimm, G., Hohmann, V., Kollmeier, B. & Ewert, S.D. 2016b. Auditory model-based dynamic compression controlled by subband instantaneous frequency and speech presence probability estimates. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 24, 1759–1772.
   Google Scholar
• Kortlang, S., Ernst, S., Meister, H., Rählmann, S., Kießling, J., et al. 2017. Combination of controlled laboratory tests and structured field trials for a comprehensive evaluation of a model-based hearing aid. Int J Audiol.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luts, H., Eneman, K., Wouters, J., Schulte, M., Vormann, M., et al. 2010. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 1491–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Poveda, E.A. & Barrios, P. 2013. Perception of stochastically undersampled sound waveforms: A model of auditory deafferentation. Front Neurosci, 7, 1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauler, D., Nagathil, A. & Martin, R. 2007. On optimal estimation of compressed speech for hearing aids. Proc. Interspeech, Antwerp, Belgium, 826–829.
   Google Scholar
• Ngo, K., Spriet, A., Moonen, M., Wouters, J. & Jensen, S.H. 2012. A combined multi-channel Wiener filter-based noise reduction and dynamic range compression in hearing aids. Signal Proc, 92, 417–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. & Hirsch, H.G. 2000. The Aurora experimental framework for the performance evaluation of speech recognition systems under noisy conditions. ISCA ITRW ASR2000, 29–32.
   Google Scholar
• Preminger, J.E. & Van Tasell, D.J. 1995. Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 714–725.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rasetshwane, D.M., Gorga, M.P. & Neely, S.T. 2014. Signal-processing strategy for restoration of cross-channel suppression in hearing-impaired listeners. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 61, 64–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robles, L. & Ruggero, M.A. 2001. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev, 81, 1305–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza, P.E., Jenstad, L.M. & Folino, R. 2005. Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: Effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear, 26, 120–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener, K., Brand, T. & Kollmeier, B. 1999. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests (Development and evaluation of a German sentence test III: Evaluation of the Oldenburg sentence test. Z Audiol/Audiol Acoust, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Woodall, A. & Liu, C. 2013. Effects of signal level and spectral contrast on vowel formant discrimination for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Am J Audiol, 22, 94–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar