A channel-selection criterion for suppressing reverberation in cochlear implants.

Little is known about the extent to which reverberation affects speech intelligibility by cochlear implant (CI) listeners. Experiment 1 assessed CI users' performance using Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) sentences corrupted with varying degrees of reverberation. Reverberation times of 0.30, 0.60, 0.80, and 1.0 s were used. Results indicated that for all subjects tested, speech intelligibility decreased exponentially with an increase in reverberation time. A decaying-exponential model provided an excellent fit to the data. Experiment 2 evaluated (offline) a speech coding strategy for reverberation suppression using a channel-selection criterion based on the signal-to-reverberant ratio (SRR) of individual frequency channels. The SRR reflects implicitly the ratio of the energies of the signal originating from the early (and direct) reflections and the signal originating from the late reflections. Channels with SRR larger than a preset threshold were selected, while channels with SRR smaller than the threshold were zeroed out. Results in a highly reverberant scenario indicated that the proposed strategy led to substantial gains (over 60 percentage points) in speech intelligibility over the subjects' daily strategy. Further analysis indicated that the proposed channel-selection criterion reduces the temporal envelope smearing effects introduced by reverberation and also diminishes the self-masking effects responsible for flattened formants.

[1]  Guy J. Brown,et al.  Techniques for handling convolutional distortion with 'missing data' automatic speech recognition , 2004, Speech Commun..

[2]  Yang Lu,et al.  An algorithm that improves speech intelligibility in noise for normal-hearing listeners. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Speech enhancement with multichannel Wiener filter techniques in multimicrophone binaural hearing aids. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Selective-Tap Blind Dereverberation for Two-Microphone Enhancement of Reverberant Speech , 2009, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[5]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  Multi-microphone adaptive noise reduction strategies for coordinated stimulation in bilateral cochlear implant devices. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Yi Hu,et al.  A new sound coding strategy for suppressing noise in cochlear implants. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Effects of reverberation and masking on speech intelligibility in cochlear implant simulations. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Speech processing in vocoder-centric cochlear implants. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[10]  R. H. Bolt,et al.  Theory of Speech masking by reverberation , 1949 .

[11]  A. Kjellberg Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: theoretical considerations. , 2004, Noise & health.

[12]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  The Perception of Speech Under Adverse Conditions , 2004 .

[13]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Similarities of vowels in nonreverberant and reverberant fields. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  P. Krishnamoorthy,et al.  Reverberant Speech Enhancement by Temporal and Spectral Processing , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[15]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Isolating the energetic component of speech-on-speech masking with ideal time-frequency segregation. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Kenneth N Stevens,et al.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  H J McDermott,et al.  Perceptual Performance of Subjects with Cochlear Implants Using the Spectral Maxima Sound Processor (SMSP) and the Mini Speech Processor (MSP) , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[18]  H. Gaskell The precedence effect , 1983, Hearing Research.

[19]  T R Letowski,et al.  Vowel confusions of hearing-impaired listeners under reverberant and nonreverberant conditions. , 1985, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[20]  Ken'ichi Furuya,et al.  Robust Speech Dereverberation Using Multichannel Blind Deconvolution With Spectral Subtraction , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[21]  Bernhard U. Seeber,et al.  Precedence-effect with cochlear implant simulation , 2007 .

[22]  Yi Hu,et al.  Environment-specific noise suppression for improved speech intelligibility by cochlear implant users. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[24]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[25]  Joshua J. Hajicek,et al.  Combined Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Speech Recognition Performance of Normal-Hearing Children and Adults , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Sarah F Poissant,et al.  Effects of source-to-listener distance and masking on perception of cochlear implant processed speech in reverberant rooms. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Masato Miyoshi,et al.  Inverse filtering of room acoustics , 1988, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[28]  IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measurements , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics.

[29]  J. Pickett,et al.  Monaural and binaural speech perception through hearing aids under noise and reverberation with normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1974, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[30]  P. Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.