Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Abstract Objective: The perceived qualities of nine different single-microphone noise reduction (SMNR) algorithms were to be evaluated and compared in subjective listening tests with normal hearing and hearing impaired (HI) listeners. Design: Speech samples added with traffic noise or with party noise were processed by the SMNR algorithms. Subjects rated the amount of speech distortions, intrusiveness of background noise, listening effort and overall quality, using a simplified MUSHRA (ITU-R, 2003) assessment method. Study sample: 18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study. Results: Significant differences between the rating behaviours of the two subject groups were observed: While normal hearing subjects clearly differentiated between different SMNR algorithms, HI subjects rated all processed signals very similarly. Moreover, HI subjects rated speech distortions of the unprocessed, noisier signals as being more severe than the distortions of the processed signals, in contrast to normal hearing subjects. Conclusions: It seems harder for HI listeners to distinguish between additive noise and speech distortions or/and they might have a different understanding of the term “speech distortion” than normal hearing listeners have. The findings confirm that the evaluation of SMNR schemes for hearing aids should always involve HI listeners.

[1]  Nobuhiko Kitawaki,et al.  Objective quality evaluation for low-bit-rate speech coding systems , 1988, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[2]  Richard C. Hendriks,et al.  Unbiased MMSE-Based Noise Power Estimation With Low Complexity and Low Tracking Delay , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[3]  M. Tripathy,et al.  Comparative Evaluation Single Channel Speech Enhancement Algorithms with and without Phase Spectrum Compensation , 2014 .

[4]  In-young Kim,et al.  Sound Quality Evaluation of a Speech Enhancement Algorithm for Hearing Impaired Listeners , 2010 .

[5]  Yonghong Yan,et al.  Comparative intelligibility investigation of single-channel noise-reduction algorithms for Chinese, Japanese, and English. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Rainer Martin,et al.  On the Statistics of Spectral Amplitudes After Variance Reduction by Temporal Cepstrum Smoothing and Cepstral Nulling , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[7]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  PEMO-Q—A New Method for Objective Audio Quality Assessment Using a Model of Auditory Perception , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[8]  Yi Hu,et al.  A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Method for the subjective assessment of intermedi-ate quality levels of coding systems , 2001 .

[10]  F. Itakura,et al.  Minimum prediction residual principle applied to speech recognition , 1975 .

[11]  Methods for objective and subjective assessment of quality Perceptual evaluation of speech quality ( PESQ ) : An objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech codecs , 2002 .

[12]  Roberto Togneri,et al.  A Psychoacoustic Noise Reduction Method by Auditory Inhibition , 2013 .

[13]  Yi Hu,et al.  Subjective comparison and evaluation of speech enhancement algorithms , 2007, Speech Commun..

[14]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Rainer Martin,et al.  A novel a priori SNR estimation approach based on selective cepstro-temporal smoothing , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[16]  Sang-min Lee,et al.  A speech enhancement algorithm to reduce noise and compensate for partial masking effect , 2011 .

[17]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.