Chapter 16 – Contribution of Noise Reduction Algorithms: Perception Versus Localization Simulation in the Case of Binaural Cochlear Implant (BCI) Coding

Communication and warning are two basic tasks devoted to the auditory system and it is worth to see them together when assistive techniques are considered for hearing rehabilitation. French phonemes recognition in noisy conditions and acoustic source localization, in the case of a cochlear implant (CI) coding simulation, are compared in this chapter. Three binaural noise reduction systems have been considered: the Beamformer algorithm, the Doerbecker's processing combined with the Ephraim & Malah's noise estimator or with the Scalart's noise reduction strategy. This study has been conducted with twenty normally hearing subjects. Results show that the Beamformer algorithm and the Doerbecker's processing improved the phoneme recognition scores. The best results in recognition were obtained using the Beamformer algorithm. On the contrary, the beamformer algorithm and the Doerbecker's processing lowered the source localization. A small reinjection of the signal (20%) was profitable to the Beamformer algorithm; this improvement was not seen with the Doerbecker's processing.

[1]  Olivier Cappé,et al.  Elimination of the musical noise phenomenon with the Ephraim and Malah noise suppressor , 1994, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[2]  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.

[3]  Stefan Kerber,et al.  Sound Localization in Noise by Normal-Hearing Listeners and Cochlear Implant Users , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[4]  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.

[5]  Jens Blauert,et al.  The Technology of Binaural Listening , 2013 .

[6]  D T Lawson,et al.  Bilateral cochlear implants controlled by a single speech processor. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[7]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Enhancement of interaural level differences improves sound localization in bimodal hearing. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Martin Bouchard,et al.  Beamforming with microphone arrays for directional sources. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  A Dual-Microphone Algorithm That Can Cope With Competing-Talker Scenarios , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[10]  Marc Moonen,et al.  The effect of multimicrophone noise reduction systems on sound source localization by users of binaural hearing aids. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Speech Understanding Performance of Cochlear Implant Subjects Using Time–Frequency Masking-Based Noise Reduction , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users Compared on Speech Perception in Noise , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Pascal Scalart,et al.  Speech enhancement based on a priori signal to noise estimation , 1996, 1996 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Conference Proceedings.

[14]  R. Litovsky,et al.  Interaural Time-Delay Sensitivity in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Pulse Rate, Modulation Rate, and Place of Stimulation , 2009, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[16]  M Kompis,et al.  Performance of an adaptive beamforming noise reduction scheme for hearing aid applications. I. Prediction of the signal-to-noise-ratio improvement. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Mondher Frikha,et al.  Dual-channel spectral subtraction algorithms based speech enhancement dedicated to a bilateral cochlear implant , 2012 .

[18]  Maria Chait,et al.  Brain–Speech Alignment Enhances Auditory Cortical Responses and Speech Perception , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  David Poeppel,et al.  The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as 'asymmetric sampling in time' , 2003, Speech Commun..

[20]  M F Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[21]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  David Malah,et al.  Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimator , 1984, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[23]  Q. Fu,et al.  Spectral subtraction-based speech enhancement for cochlear implant patients in background noise. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.