Output signal-to-noise ratio and speech perception in noise: effects of algorithm

References

• Alexander, J.M. & Masterson, K. 2015. Effects of WDRC release time and number of channels on output SNR and speech recognition. Ear Hear, 36, e35–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibly Index. New York: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler, R. & Chiou, L.K. 2006. Digital noise reduction: An overview. Trends Amplif, 10, 67–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Billings, C.J., Tremblay, K.L., Souza, P.E. & Binns, M.A. 2007. Effects of hearing aid amplification and stimulus intensity on cortical auditory evoked potentials. Audiol Neurotol, 12, 234–246.
   PubMed 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
• Chong, F.Y. & Jenstad, L.M. 2010. The effects of digital noise reduction algorithms on speech and noise. Poster presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference; Lake Tahoe, CA; 2010 Aug.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, K. 2004. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif, 8, 83–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung, K. 2010, Reducing noise interference: Strategies to enhance hearing aid performance. The ASHA Leader, 15, 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. & Gilmore, C. 1987. Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear, 8, 119S–126S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C., Gilmore, C. & Pusakulich, K.M. 1988. Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear, 9, 198–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, H. 2012. Hearing Aids. Turramurra: Boomerang Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G. & Elberling, C. 2003. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol, 42, S77–S85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafson, S., McCreery, R., Hoover, B., Kopun, J.G. & Stelmachowicz, P. 2014. Listening effort and perceived clarity for normal-hearing children with the use of digital noise reduction. Ear Hear, 35, 183–194.
   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. Acustica, 90, 356–361.
   Google Scholar
• Hartling, C., Wu, Y.H. & Bentler, R.A. 2012. Hearing aid algorithm stability: Hagerman’s phase inversion technique. Poster presented at the American Auditory Society Conference; Scottsdale, AZ; 2012 Mar.
   Google Scholar
• Henning, R.W. & Bentler, R. 2005. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals. Ear Hear, 26, 409–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humes, L.E. 2002. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am, 112, 1112–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M. & Souza, P.E. 2005. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 48, 651–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad, L.M. & Zakis, J. 2011. Using an inversion technique to quantify non-linear hearing aid processing. Poster presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference; Lake Tahoe, CA; 2011 Aug.
   Google Scholar
• Johannesson, R.B. 2006a. Output SNR Manual. Oticon. Report 052-08-05.
   Google Scholar
• Johannesson, R.B. 2006b. Output SNR Measurement Method. Oticon. Report 052-08-04.
   Google Scholar
• Kates, J.M. 2008. Digital Hearing Aids. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kates, J. & Arehart, K. 2005. Coherence and the speech intelligibility index. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 2224–2237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunner, T. & Sundewall-Thorén, E. 2007. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 604–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacPherson, A. & Akeroyd, M.A. 2014. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: A systematic survey. Trends Hear, 18, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B., Johnson, J., Clark, T. & Pluvinage, V. 1992. Evaluation of a dual channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear, 13, 349–370.
   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
• Ohlenforst, B., Souza, P.E. & MacDonald, E.N. 2015. Exploring the relationship between working memory, compressor speed, and background noise characteristics. Ear Hear, 37, 137–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, H.L., Olofsson, A. & Hagerman, B. 2005. The effect of audibility, signal-to-noise ratio, and temporal speech cues on the benefit from fast-acting compression in modulated noise. Int J Audiol, 44, 421–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oticon. 2009. Oticon Clinical Update. Retrieved January 16, 2013: http://www.oticon.com/∼asset/cache.ashx?id = 10212&type = 14&format=web.
   Google Scholar
• Pearsons, K.S., Bennett, R.L. & Fidell, S. 1977. EPA Report No. 600/1-77-025.
   Google Scholar
• Phonak. 2010. Phonak Ambra Technical Data. Retrieved January 16, 2013: http://www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonak/b2b/C_M_tools/Hearing_Instruments/Phonak_Ambra/Documents/02-gb/com_datasheet_Phonak_Ambra_microP_GB_V1.00.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rhebergen, K., Versfeld, N. & Dreschler, W.A. 2009. The dynamic range of speech, compression, and its effect on the speech reception threshold in stationary and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 126, 3236–3245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudner, M., Lunner, T., Behrens, T., Sunderwall Thoren, E., Ronnberg, T. 2012. Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeds, K., Wolters, F. & Rung, M. 2015. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 183–196.
   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. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 41–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker, G.A. 1985. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 28, 455–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremblay, K.L. & Miller, C.W. 2014. How neuroscience relates to hearing aid amplification. Int J Otolaryngol, 2014, Article ID: 641652.
   Google Scholar
• Widex. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved January 16, 2013: http://www.widexpro.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/b1/04_SjzS2NDQwtTQyt9SP0I_KSyzLTE8syczPS8wB8aPM4s0NDLwtnAwdDfwDHd0MPD0MDIIs_J2N_C3M9XOjHBUBz3btag!!/#FAQNUM19.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R.H. & McArdle, R. 2012. Speech-in-noise measures: Variable versus fixed speech and noise levels. Int J Audiol, 51, 708–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, H. & Stangl, E. 2013. The effect of hearing aid signal-processing schemes on acceptable noise levels: Perception and prediction. Ear Hear, 34, 333–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar