Perceptual Effects of Noise Reduction With Respect to Personal Preference, Speech Intelligibility, and Listening Effort

Objectives: Most modern hearing aids use noise reduction to increase listening comfort in noisy environments. However, it is unclear whether perceptual effects (e.g., intelligibility, listening effort, and preference) of noise reduction differ among hearing aids and among listeners. The authors compared perceptual scores across different hearing aid noise-reduction systems to determine (1) whether noise-reduction systems differ perceptually and (2) which factors underlie the overall preference of individual listeners. Design: The authors recorded hearing aid noise-reduction outputs and used these signals in a laboratory experiment. The recording method allowed the evaluation of noise reduction in an isolated form, without the dominant effects of hearing aid frequency response and interactions with dynamic-range compression. Ten normal-hearing subjects listened to speech in babble noise processed by noise reduction from four different hearing aids. The subjects performed (1) speech-intelligibility tests, (2) listening-effort ratings, and (3) paired-comparison ratings with respect to noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. Results: Noise-reduction systems from different hearing aids differed in the degree to which they influenced the noise annoyance and speech naturalness perceived by the normal-hearing listeners. Small differences in intelligibility and effort scores were found among different noise-reduction systems but not between having noise reduction on and off. Subjects differed in whether their overall preference was more strongly related to noise annoyance or to speech naturalness. Conclusions: The authors conclude that noise annoyance and speech naturalness are determining factors for the overall preference of normal-hearing listeners for a specific noise-reduction condition, and found individual differences in the preferred weighting of these factors even in a homogeneous group of normal-hearing listeners. Subsequent experiments should include hearing-impaired subjects to determine whether these conclusions also hold for a more heterogeneous group of listeners. If these results can be extrapolated to hearing-impaired listeners, the fitting and fine-tuning of noise reduction in hearing aids needs considerable revision.

[1]  Tjeerd M. H. Dijkstra,et al.  The influence of noise type on the preferred setting of a noise reduction algorithm , 2011 .

[2]  R. Bentler,et al.  Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[3]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[4]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Reasons why Current Speech-Enhancement Algorithms do not Improve Speech Intelligibility and Suggested Solutions , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[5]  Mark Marzinzik,et al.  Noise Reduction Schemes for Digital Hearing Aids and Their Use for the Hearing Impaired , 2001 .

[6]  Todd A Ricketts,et al.  Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  King Chung,et al.  Effective compression and noise reduction configurations for hearing protectors. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  G F Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Ruth Bentler,et al.  Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[10]  D. Markle,et al.  Hearing Aids , 1936, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

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

[12]  Monique Boymans,et al.  Field Trials Using a Digital Hearing Aid with Active Noise Reduction and Dual-Microphone Directionality: Estudios de campo utilizando un audifono digital con reduccion activa del ruido y micrófono de direccionalidad dual , 2000, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[13]  J. Leybaert,et al.  Neurolinguistic development in deaf children: the effect of early language experience , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[14]  James M. Kates,et al.  The Hearing-Aid Speech Quality Index (HASQI) , 2010 .

[15]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  King Chung,et al.  Challenges and Recent Developments in Hearing Aids: Part I. Speech Understanding in Noise, Microphone Technologies and Noise Reduction Algorithms , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[17]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Classification of steady state gain reduction produced by amplitude modulation based noise reduction in digital hearing aids , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[18]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[19]  Stacie Nordrum,et al.  Comparison of performance on the hearing in noise test using directional microphones and digital noise reduction algorithms. , 2006, American journal of audiology.

[20]  Catherine V Palmer,et al.  Amplification With Digital Noise Reduction and the Perception of Annoying and Aversive Sounds , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[21]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognition and hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[22]  P. F. Seitz,et al.  Stimulus materials for audio‐visual studies of attention and speech perception by the hearing impaired , 1993 .

[23]  Benjamin W Y Hornsby,et al.  The Effects of Digital Noise Reduction on the Acceptance of Background Noise , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[24]  R. Bentler Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[25]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid: Evaluación del sistema de reducción de ruido en un auxiliar auditivo digital comercial , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[26]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Speech Enhancement: Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[27]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[28]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[30]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS , 1952 .

[31]  U Böckenholt Hierarchical modeling of paired comparison data. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[32]  W. Dreschler,et al.  A Method to Remove Differences in Frequency Response Between Commercial Hearing Aids to Allow Direct Comparison of the Sound Quality of Hearing-Aid Features , 2011, Trends in amplification.

[33]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  Differences in Preference for Noise Reduction Strength between Individual Listeners , 2011 .

[34]  Walter Katzenbeisser,et al.  A log-linear approach for modelling ordinal paired comparison data on motives to start a PhD programme , 2004 .