Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a digital noise reduction (DNR) scheme implemented in a current commercial hearing aid. In a double-blinded design, three conditions of onset time (4, 8, 16 seconds) were randomly assigned to the 25 subjects, plus one condition wherein the noise-reduction feature was disengaged. Subsequently, a fifth trial/condition, wherein the subject had access to three memories in which the different onsets were programmed, was carried out. For each of the five conditions, the subjects had an at-home trial, prior to obtaining self-report measures. Laboratory measures of speech perception showed no effect of the DNR, with or without the provision of visual cues. Laboratory-based ratings of ease of listening showed DNR-on (all onset times) to be rated significantly better than DNR-off; for ratings of listening comfort, the 4-second onset time was rated significantly lower (poorer) than the 8-second onset or the DNR-off condition; for ratings of sound quality, DNR-on or -off had no differential effect. Self-report measures indicated significantly higher aversiveness in the DNR-off condition compared to the pre-test scores

[1]  J UTLEY.  A test of lip reading ability. , 1946, The Journal of speech disorders.

[2]  W. H. Sumby,et al.  Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise , 1954 .

[3]  N. P. Erber.  Interaction of audition and vision in the recognition of oral speech stimuli. , 1969, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  N. P. Erber,et al.  Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual recognition of consonants by children with normal and impaired hearing. , 1972, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  H. McGurk,et al.  Hearing lips and seeing voices , 1976, Nature.

[6]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  V. Leirer,et al.  Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. , 1982, Journal of psychiatric research.

[8]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  A. Macleod,et al.  Quantifying the contribution of vision to speech perception in noise. , 1987, British journal of audiology.

[10]  R Plomp,et al.  The effect of speechreading on the speech-reception threshold of sentences in noise. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Q. Summerfield.  Some preliminaries to a comprehensive account of audio-visual speech perception. , 1987 .

[12]  D. Reisberg,et al.  Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lip-reading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. , 1987 .

[13]  R M Cox,et al.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[14]  R. Rabbetts,et al.  Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements , 1989, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[15]  R A Bentler,et al.  Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[16]  Ken W. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory‐visual integration , 1995 .

[17]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995 .

[18]  R. R. Abidin.  Psychological Assessment Resources , 1995 .

[19]  J. Shua‐Haim,et al.  A SIMPLE SCORING SYSTEM FOR CLOCK DRAWING IN PATIENTS WITH ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE , 1996, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[20]  H. Dillon,et al.  Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  P. Costa,et al.  Personality trait structure as a human universal. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[22]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Longitudinal Stability of Adult Personality , 1997 .

[23]  R. Bentler,et al.  Relating hearing aid use to well‐being among older adults , 1998 .

[24]  K. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory-visual integration in nonsense syllables and sentences. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[26]  R M Cox,et al.  Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  R K Surr,et al.  Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[28]  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.

[29]  D. Massaro,et al.  Tests of auditory-visual integration efficiency within the framework of the fuzzy logical model of perception. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  P. Costa,et al.  Personality at Midlife: Stability, Intrinsic Maturation, and Response to Life Events , 2000, Assessment.

[31]  R A Bentler,et al.  An Examination of Several Characteristics that Affect the Prediction of OSPL90 in Hearing Aids , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[32]  K. Grant,et al.  Measures of auditory-visual integration for speech understanding: a theoretical perspective. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  D. Massaro.  From Multisensory Integration to Talking Heads and Language Learning , 2002 .

[34]  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.

[35]  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.

[36]  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.

[37]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Who Wants a Hearing Aid? Personality Profiles of Hearing Aid Seekers , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[38]  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.

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

[40]  H Gustav Mueller,et al.  Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: II. Self-report outcomes. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[42]  Catherine Palmer,et al.  Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: I. Speech perception outcomes. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[44]  M. Davies,et al.  Endovascular treatment of tracheoinnominate artery fistula: a case report. , 2006, Vascular and endovascular surgery.