Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived music quality

References

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2004. Specification for audiometers (S3.6–2004). New York: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson M.C., Arehart K.H., Kates J.M. 2009. The acoustic and perceptual effects of series and parallel processing. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process, 2009, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Arehart K.H., Kates J.M., Anderson M.C., Harvey L.O. 2007. Effects of noise and distortion on speech quality judgments in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 1150–1164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arehart K.H., Kates J.M., Anderson M.C. 2010. Effects of noise, nonlinear processing, and linear filtering on perceived speech quality. Ear Hear, 31, 420–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D., Dillon H. 1986. The National-Acoustic-Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency-response of a hearing-aid. Ear Hear, 7, 257–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chasin M. 2009. Hearing Loss in Musicians: Prevention and Management. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Davies-Venn E., Souza P., Fabry D. 2007. Speech and music quality ratings for linear and nonlinear hearing aid circuitry. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 688–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabrielsson A., Sjogren H. 1979. Perceived sound quality of sound-reproducing systems. J Acoust Soc Am, 65, 1019–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen M. 2002. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear, 23, 369–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins D.B., Naidoo S.V. 1993. Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and output limiting compression. J Am Acad Audiol, 4, 221–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huber R., Kollmeier B. 2006. PEMO-Q: A new method for objective audio quality assessment using a model of auditory perception. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Processing, 14, 1902–1911.
   Google Scholar
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 1998. Method for Objective Measurement of Perceived Audio Quality. (BS.1387). Geneva: Author.
   Google Scholar
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003. General Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Sound Quality (BS.1284). Geneva: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M. 2008. Digital Hearing Aids. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M., Arehart K.H. 2005. Multichannel dynamic-range compression using digital frequency warping. EURASIP J Appl Signal Processing, 3003–3014.
   Google Scholar
• Kates J.M., Arehart K.H. 2010. The hearing-aid speech quality index (HASQI). J Audio Eng Soc, 58, 363–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2010. MarkeTrak VIII: Customer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hear J, 63, 11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kozma-Spytek L., Kates J.M., Revoile S.G. 1996. Quality ratings for frequency-shaped peak clipped speech: Results for listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res, 39, 1115–1123.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lawson G.D., Chial M.R. 1982. Magnitude estimation of degraded speech quality by normal-hearing and impaired-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 72, 1781–1787.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundberg G., Ovegard A., Hagerman B., Gabrielsson A., Brandstrom U. 1992. Perceived sound quality in a hearing-aid with vented and closed earmould equalized in frequency-response. Scand Audiol, 21, 87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Glasberg B.R. 1983. Suggested formulas for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am, 74, 750–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Tan C.T. 2003. Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 408–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Tan C.T. 2004. Development and validation of a method for predicting the perceived naturalness of sounds subjected to spectral distortion. J Audio Eng Soc, 52, 900–914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Tan C.T., Zacharov N., Mattila V.V. 2004. Measuring and predicting the perceived quality of music and speech subjected to combined linear and nonlinear distortion. J Audio Eng Soc, 52, 1228–1244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman A.C., Bakke M.H., Hellman S., Levitt H. 1994. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing-aid: Paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 1471–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson M., Soli S., Sullivan J. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson R.D., Allerhan, M.H., Giguere C. 1995. Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: A modular architecture and a software platform. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 1890–1894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Ricketts T.A., Dittberner A.B., Johson E.E. 2008. High-frequency amplification and sound quality in listeners with normal through moderate hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 160–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L.F., Doherty K.A. 2008. Subjective and objective effects of fast and slow compression on the perception of reverberant speech in listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 51, 1328–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P.E. 2002. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif, 6, 131–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tan C.T., Moore B.C.J. 2003. The effect of nonlinear distortion on the perceived quality of music and speech signals. J Audio Eng Soc, 51, 1012–1031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan C.T., Moore B.C.J. 2008. Perception of nonlinear distortion by hearing-impaired people. Int J Audiol, 47, 246–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan C.T., Moore B.C.J., Zacharov N., Mattila V.V. 2004. Predicting the perceived quality of nonlinearly distorted music and speech signals. J Audio Eng Soc, 52, 699–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiede T., Treurniet W.C., Bitto R., Schmidmer C., Sporer T. . 2000. PEAQ: The ITU standard for objective measurement of perceived audio quality. J Audio Eng Soc, 48, 3–29.
   Google Scholar
• Treurniet W.C., Soulodre G.A. 2000. Evaluation of the ITU-R objective audio quality measurement method. J Audio Eng Soc, 48, 164–173.
   Google Scholar
• Tsoukalas D.E., Mourjopoulos J.N., Kokkinakis G. 1997. Speech enhancement based on audible noise suppression. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process, 5, 497–514.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren R.A., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. 1999. Compression and expansion of the temporal envelope: Evaluation of speech intelligibility and sound quality. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 2903–2913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versfeld N.J., Festen J.M., Houtgast T. 1999. Preference judgments of artificial processed and hearing-aid transduced speech. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 1566–1578.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar