Interactions Between Digital Noise Reduction and Reverberation: Acoustic and Behavioral Effects

BACKGROUND Digital noise reduction (DNR) processing is used in hearing aids to enhance perception in noise by classifying and suppressing the noise acoustics. However, the efficacy of DNR processing is not known under reverberant conditions where the speech-in-noise acoustics are further degraded by reverberation. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate acoustic and perceptual effects of DNR processing across a range of reverberant conditions for individuals with hearing impairment. RESEARCH DESIGN This study used an experimental design to investigate the effects of varying reverberation on speech-in-noise processed with DNR. STUDY SAMPLE Twenty-six listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing impairment participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Speech stimuli were combined with unmodulated broadband noise at several signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A range of reverberant conditions with realistic parameters were simulated, as well as an anechoic control condition without reverberation. Reverberant speech-in-noise signals were processed using a spectral subtraction DNR simulation. Signals were acoustically analyzed using a phase inversion technique to quantify improvement in SNR as a result of DNR processing. Sentence intelligibility and subjective ratings of listening effort, speech naturalness, and background noise comfort were examined with and without DNR processing across the conditions. RESULTS Improvement in SNR was greatest in the anechoic control condition and decreased as the ratio of direct to reverberant energy decreased. There was no significant effect of DNR processing on speech intelligibility in the anechoic control condition, but there was a significant decrease in speech intelligibility with DNR processing in all of the reverberant conditions. Subjectively, listeners reported greater listening effort and lower speech naturalness with DNR processing in some of the reverberant conditions. Listeners reported higher background noise comfort with DNR processing only in the anechoic control condition. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest that reverberation affects DNR processing using a spectral subtraction algorithm in such a way that decreases the ability of DNR to reduce noise without distorting the speech acoustics. Overall, DNR processing may be most beneficial in environments with little reverberation and that the use of DNR processing in highly reverberant environments may actually produce adverse perceptual effects. Further research is warranted using commercial hearing aids in realistic reverberant environments.

[1]  Candace Bourland Hick,et al.  Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Karen A. Doherty,et al.  The Effect of Hearing Aid Noise Reduction on Listening Effort in Hearing-Impaired Adults , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Frederick J Gallun,et al.  Effects of Reverberation and Compression on Consonant Identification in Individuals with Hearing Impairment , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[4]  S. Boll,et al.  Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction , 1979 .

[5]  G Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Intelligibility and Clarity of Reverberant Speech: Effects of Wide Dynamic Range Compression Release Time and Working Memory. , 2016, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[9]  Pamela E Souza,et al.  Talker Versus Dialect Effects on Speech Intelligibility: A Symmetrical Study , 2015, Language and speech.

[10]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  The signal-cognition interface: interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[11]  Robert B. Newman,et al.  Collected Papers on Acoustics , 1927 .

[12]  L E Cornelisse,et al.  Evaluation of a Speech Enhancement Strategy with Normal‐Hearing and Hearing‐Impaired Listeners , 1995, Ear and hearing.

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

[14]  Karolina Smeds,et al.  Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios. , 2015, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[15]  L. Humes,et al.  The Acoustic Environments in Which Older Adults Wear Their Hearing Aids: Insights From Datalogging Sound Environment Classification , 2018, American journal of audiology.

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

[17]  Sergei Kochkin,et al.  MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non‐user adoption of hearing aids , 2007 .

[18]  Samantha Gustafson,et al.  Listening Effort and Perceived Clarity for Normal-Hearing Children With the Use of Digital Noise Reduction , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[19]  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.

[20]  James M. Kates,et al.  Digital hearing aids. , 2008, Harvard health letter.

[21]  Pavel Zahorik,et al.  Perceptually relevant parameters for virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  Effects of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Perceived Listening Effort, and Personal Preference in Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 2014, Trends in hearing.

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

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

[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]  F L Wightman,et al.  Resolution of front-back ambiguity in spatial hearing by listener and source movement. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  T. Lunner,et al.  The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

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

[29]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics , 1976 .

[30]  Heather Fortnum,et al.  Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them? , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[31]  John H. L. Hansen,et al.  Evaluation of an auditory masked threshold noise suppression algorithm in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners , 2003, Speech Commun..

[32]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Perceptual Effects of Noise Reduction With Respect to Personal Preference, Speech Intelligibility, and Listening Effort , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[33]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.

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

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

[36]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Noise Reduction Improves Memory for Target Language Speech in Competing Native but Not Foreign Language Speech , 2015, Ear and hearing.

[37]  H Levitt,et al.  Noise reduction in hearing aids: a review. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[38]  F Martellotta,et al.  The just noticeable difference of center time and clarity index in large reverberant spaces. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Alan McCree,et al.  New methods for adaptive noise suppression , 1995, 1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[40]  Christian Schindler,et al.  Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[41]  R. Cox,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Listening Effort As Part of an Audiologic Test Battery. , 2015, American journal of audiology.

[42]  S. Kochkin MarkeTrak V: “Why my hearing aids are in the drawer” The consumers' perspective , 2000 .

[43]  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.