Parameter tuning of time-frequency masking algorithms for reverberant artifact removal within the cochlear implant stimulus

References

• Anzalone, M.C., Calandruccio, L., Doherty, K.A., Carney, L.H. 2006. Determination of the potential benefit of time-frequency gain manipulation. Ear and Hearing, 27(5): 480–492. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000233891.86809.df.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey, P.J., Dowell, R.C., Tong, Y.C., Clark, G.M. 1984. An acoustic model of a multiple-channel cochlear implant. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76(1): 97–103. doi:10.1121/1.391012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brungart, D.S., Chang, P.S., Simpson, B.D., Wang, D. 2006. Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(6): 4007–4018. doi:10.1121/1.2363929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, K. M., Collins, L. M., & Mainsah, B. O. (2021). Phoneme-based time-frequency mask estimation for reverberant speech enhancement for cochlear implant users. Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Online/virtual conference.
   Google Scholar
• Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Rainey, D. 1997. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102: 2403–2411. doi:10.1121/1.419603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazrati, O., Lee, J., Loizou, P.C. 2013. Blind binary masking for reverberation suppression in cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3): 1607–1614. doi:10.1121/1.4789891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazrati, O., Loizou, P.C. 2012. Tackling the combined effects of reverberation and masking noise using ideal channel selection. The Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(2): 500–510. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0073).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazrati, O., Loizou, P.C. 2013. Reverberation suppression in cochlear implants using a blind channel-selection strategy. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(6): 4188–4196. doi:10.1121/1.4804313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazrati, O., Omid Sadjadi, S., Loizou, P.C., Hansen, J.H.L. 2013. Simultaneous suppression of noise and reverberation in cochlear implants using a ratio masking strategy. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5): 3759–3765. doi:10.1121/1.4823839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, E., Delfarah, M., Johnson, E., Wang, D. 2019. A deep learning algorithm to increase intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in the presence of a competing talker and reverberation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(3): 1874–1874. doi:10.1121/1.5101778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeub, M., Schafer, M., & Vary, P. (2009). A binaural room impulse response database for the evaluation of dereverberation algorithms. 16th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (Vols 1 and 2, pp. 550–554), Santorini, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Kokkinakis, K., Hazrati, O., Loizou, P.C. 2011. A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(5): 3221–3232. doi:10.1121/1.3559683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokkinakis, K., Stohl, J.S. 2021. Optimized gain functions in ideal time-frequency masks and their application to dereverberation for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Express Letters, 1(8): 084401. doi:10.1121/10.0005740.
   Google Scholar
• Koning, R., Madhu, N., Wouters, J. 2015. Ideal time–frequency masking algorithms lead to different speech intelligibility and quality in normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 62(1): 331–341. doi:10.1109/TBME.2014.2351854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kressner, A.A., Westermann, A., Buchholz, J.M. 2018. The impact of reverberation on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant recipients. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(2): 1113–1122. doi:10.1121/1.5051640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuttruff, H. 2009. Room acoustics. London: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., Li, J., & Yan, Y. (2017). Ideal ratio mask estimation using deep neural networks for monaural speech segregation in noisy reverberant conditions. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH) (pp. 1203–1207), London. doi:10.21437/Interspeech.2017-549
   Google Scholar
• Li, N., Loizou, P.C. 2008. Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(3): 1673–1682. doi:10.1121/1.2832617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Wang, D.L. 2009. On the optimality of ideal binary time-frequency masks. Speech Communication, 51(3): 230–239. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2008.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, J.S., Oppenheim, A.V. 1979. Enhancement and bandwidth compression of noisy speech. Proceedings of the IEEE, 67(12): 1586–1604. doi:10.1109/PROC.1979.11540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loizou, P.C. 2006. Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. Advances in Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 64: 109–143. doi:10.1159/000094648.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loizou, P.C. 2007. Speech enhancement: theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781420015836.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, H.J., McKay, C.M., Vandali, A.E. 1992. A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/nucleus limited multielectrode cochlear implant. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91(6): 3367–3371. doi:10.1121/1.402826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek, A.K., Letowski, T.R., Tucker, F.M. 1989. Reverberant overlap-masking and self-masking in consonant identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86(4): 1259–1265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor, P.A., Gaubitch, N.D. 2010. Speech dereverberation. London: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-056-4_1.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, A.C., Wroblewski, M., Hajicek, J., Rubinstein, A. 2010. Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear and Hearing, 31(3): 336–344. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d3d514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., Soli, S.D., Sullivan, J.A. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95(2): 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman, N., Woodruff, J. 2011. Intelligibility of reverberant noisy speech with ideal binary masking. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(4): 2153–2161. doi:10.1121/1.3631668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman, N., Woodruff, J. 2013. Speech intelligibility in reverberation with ideal binary masking: effects of early reflections and signal-to-noise ratio threshold. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3): 1707–1717. doi:10.1121/1.4789895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahidi, L. K., Collins, L. M., & Mainsah, B. O. (2021). A comparison of real-time feasible mask estimation models for reverberant artifact removal in cochlear implant pulse trains. Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Online/virtual conference.
   Google Scholar
• Strydom, T., Hanekom, J.J. 2011. The performance of different synthesis signals in acoustic models of cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(2): 920–933. doi:10.1121/1.3518760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28: 455–462.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swanson, B., Mauch, H. 2006. E10511DD: Nucleus MATLAB Toolbox 4.20 Software User Manual (4.20). Article 4.20.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, D. 2005. On ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis. In: P. Divenyi, (ed.) Speech separation by humans and machines, p. 181–197. New York, NY: Springer US.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, D. 2008. Time-frequency masking for speech separation and its potential for hearing aid design. Trends in Amplification, 12(4): 332–353. doi:10.1177/1084713808326455.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, D., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M.S., Boldt, J.B., Lunner, T. 2009. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4): 2336–2347. doi:10.1121/1.3083233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitmal, N.A., Poissant, S.F., Freyman, R.L., Helfer, K.S. 2007. Speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations: effects of carrier type, interfering noise, and subject experience. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4): 2376–2388. doi:10.1121/1.2773993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Wang, D., Johnson, E.M., Healy, E.W. 2018. A deep learning based segregation algorithm to increase speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners in reverberant-noisy conditions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(3): 1627–1637. doi:10.1121/1.5055562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Wang, D., Merks, I., & Zhang, T. (2016). DNN-based enhancement of noisy and reverberant speech. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 6525–6529), Shanghai, China. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472934
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Wang, Z.-Q., & Wang, D. (2017). A two-stage algorithm for noisy and reverberant speech enhancement. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 5580–5584), New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Xu, B., Giri, R., & Zhang, T. (2018). Perceptually guided speech enhancement using deep neural networks. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 5074–5078), Calgary, AB.
   Google Scholar