Measurement and prediction of the acceptable noise level for single-microphone noise reduction algorithms

References

• Alcantara J.L., Moore B.C., Kuehnel V. & Launer S. 2003. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol, 42, 34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI S3.5-1997. Method for calculation of the speech intelligibility index. New York: Acoustical Society of America.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R. & Chiou L. 2006. Digital noise reduction: An overview. Trends Amplif, 10, 67–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bentler R., Wu Y.-H., Kettel J. & Hurtig R. 2008. Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol, 47, 447–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boll S.F. 1979. Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction. IEEE Trans Acoust, 27, 113–120.
   Google Scholar
• Chung K. 2004. Challenges and recent development in hearing aids: Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies, and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif, 8, 83–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen I. & Berdugo B. 2002. Noise estimation by minima controlled recursive averaging for robust speech enhancement. IEEE Signal Process Lett, 9, 12–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlquist M., Lutman M.E., Wood S. & Leijon, A. 2005. Methodology for quantifying perceptual effects from noise suppression systems. Int J Audiol, 44, 721–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. First edition. New York: Thieme.
   Google Scholar
• Ephraim Y. & Malah D. 1984. Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator. IEEE Trans Acoust, 32, 1109–1121.
   Google Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C.,Plyler P.N, Thelin J.W. & Hedrick M.S. 2007. The effects of speech presentation level on acceptance of noise in listeners with normal and impaired hearing, J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 878–885.
   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 Acustica united with Acustica, 90, 356–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzke T. & Hohmann V. 2005. Effects of instantaneous multiband dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. EURASIP J Appl Signal Processing, 18, 3034–3043.
   Google Scholar
• Holube I., Fredelake S., Vlaming M. & Kollmeier B. 2010. Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol, 49, 891–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holube I., Blab S., Fürsen K., Gürtler S., Meisenbacher K. . 2008. Einfluss des Störgeräuschs und der Testmethode auf die Sprachverständlichkeitsschwelle von jüngeren und älteren Normalhörenden. 11. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie, Kiel.
   Google 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 Electrotechnical Commission, 1995, IEC 1260. Electroacoustics – Octave-band and fractional-octave-band filters. Bureau of the IEC, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission, 2009, Electroacoustics – Hearing Aids – Part 15: Methods for characterizing signal processing in hearing aids, IEC CD 60118-15, 29/687/CD, Bureau of the IEC, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Kroschel K. 2004. Statistische Informationstechnik. Fourth edition. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Luts H., Eneman K., Wouters J., Schulte M., Vormann M. . 2010. Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 127, 1491–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzinzik M. 2000. Noise Reduction Schemes for Digital Hearing Aids and their Use for the Hearing Impaired. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Meister H., Lausberg I, Kiessling J., Walger M. & von Wedel H. 2002. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing-aid attributes. Otol Neurotol, 23, 457–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metselaar M., Maat B., Krijnen P., Verschuure H., Dreschler W. . 2008. Comparison of speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise after hearing aid fitting according to a purely prescriptive and a comparative fitting procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 265, 1113–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Weber J. & Hornsby B.W.Y. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10, 83–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Tucker F.M. & Letowski T.R. 1991. Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 34, 679–685.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabelek A.K. 2005. Acceptance of background noise may be key to successful fittings. The Hearing Journal, 58, 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Freyaldenhoven M.C., Tampas J.W. & Burchfield S.B. 2006. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 626–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor G. & Johannesson R.B. 2009. Long-term signal-to-noise ratio at the input and output of amplitude-compression systems. J Am Acad Audiol, 20, 161–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer C.V., Bentler R. & Mueller H.G. 2006. Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends Amplif, 10, 95–104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plyler P.N. 2009. Acceptance of background noise: Recent developments. The Hearing Journal, 62, 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T. & Hornsby B. 2005. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing 'digital noise reduction'. J Am Acad Audiol, 16, 270–277.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saunders G.H. & Kates J.M. 1997. Speech intelligibility enhancement using hearing-aid array processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 1827–1837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlueter A., Holube I., Bitzer J., Simmer U. & Brand T. 2008. Application of the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) to Single Microphone Noise Reductions, International Hearing Aid Research Conference, Lake Tahoe.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner M. 1980. Speech intelligibility in noise-induced hearing loss: Effects of high-frequency compensation. J Acoust Soc Am, 67, 306–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza P.E., Jenstad L.M. & Boike K.T. 2006. Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise (L). J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 41–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Kuehnel V. & Kollmeier B. 1999a. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics, 38, 4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999b. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics, 38, 44–56.
   Google Scholar
• Wagener K., Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 1999c. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics, 38, 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Wittkop T. 2001. Two-channels noise reduction algorithms motivated by models of binaural interaction. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Oldenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Zakis J., Hau J. & Blamey P. 2009. Environmental noise reduction configuration: Effects on preferences, satisfaction, and speech understanding. Int J Audiol, 48, 853–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar