Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression

Objectives: This study considered speech modified by additive babble combined with noise-suppression processing. The purpose was to determine the relative importance of the signal modifications, individual peripheral hearing loss, and individual cognitive capacity on speech intelligibility and speech quality. Design: The participant group consisted of 31 individuals with moderate high-frequency hearing loss ranging in age from 51 to 89 years (mean = 69.6 years). Speech intelligibility and speech quality were measured using low-context sentences presented in babble at several signal-to-noise ratios. Speech stimuli were processed with a binary mask noise-suppression strategy with systematic manipulations of two parameters (error rate and attenuation values). The cumulative effects of signal modification produced by babble and signal processing were quantified using an envelope-distortion metric. Working memory capacity was assessed with a reading span test. Analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of signal processing parameters on perceptual scores. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine the role of degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity in individual listener response to the processed noisy speech. The model also considered improvements in envelope fidelity caused by the binary mask and the degradations to envelope caused by error and noise. Results: The participants showed significant benefits in terms of intelligibility scores and quality ratings for noisy speech processed by the ideal binary mask noise-suppression strategy. This benefit was observed across a range of signal-to-noise ratios and persisted when up to a 30% error rate was introduced into the processing. Average intelligibility scores and average quality ratings were well predicted by an objective metric of envelope fidelity. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity were significant factors in explaining individual listener’s intelligibility scores for binary mask processing applied to speech in babble. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity did not predict listeners’ quality ratings. Conclusions: The results indicate that envelope fidelity is a primary factor in determining the combined effects of noise and binary mask processing for intelligibility and quality of speech presented in babble noise. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity are significant factors in explaining variability in listeners’ speech intelligibility scores but not in quality ratings.

[1]  B Hagerman,et al.  The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  C. Micheyl,et al.  Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[4]  R. Patterson,et al.  Time-domain modeling of peripheral auditory processing: a modular architecture and a software platform. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Frequency resolution as a function of hearing threshold level and age. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  S. Zahorian Principal‐Components Analysis for Low Redundancy Encoding of Speech Spectra , 1979 .

[7]  R. Klein,et al.  Tympanometric measures in older adults. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  James M. Kates An auditory model for intelligibility and quality predictions , 2013 .

[9]  J. Grose,et al.  Processing of Temporal Fine Structure as a Function of Age , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling , 1999 .

[11]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[13]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss: Susceptibility to Hearing Aid Distortion , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[14]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[15]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[16]  Raymond L. Goldsworthy,et al.  Analysis of speech-based Speech Transmission Index methods with implications for nonlinear operations. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Lauren Calandruccio,et al.  Determination of the Potential Benefit of Time-Frequency Gain Manipulation , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[18]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Do Hearing Loss and Cognitive Function Modulate Benefit From Different Binaural Noise-Reduction Settings? , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Thorsten Gerber,et al.  Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis Modeling Change And Event Occurrence , 2016 .

[20]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Effects of envelope fluctuations on gap detection , 1992, Hearing Research.

[22]  B. Moore Cochlear hearing loss : physiological, psychological and technical issues , 2014 .

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 1. Patterns of benefit , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[26]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[27]  Deliang Wang,et al.  Role of mask pattern in intelligibility of ideal binary-masked noisy speech. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[29]  Jesper Jensen,et al.  An Algorithm for Intelligibility Prediction of Time–Frequency Weighted Noisy Speech , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[30]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[31]  James M. Kates,et al.  The Hearing-Aid Speech Perception Index (HASPI) , 2014, Speech Commun..

[32]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The Choice of Compression Speed in Hearing Aids: Theoretical and Practical Considerations and the Role of Individual Differences , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[33]  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.

[34]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[35]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[36]  James M Kates,et al.  Effects of Noise, Nonlinear Processing, and Linear Filtering on Perceived Speech Quality , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[37]  J. Ware,et al.  Applied Longitudinal Analysis , 2004 .

[38]  Judith D. Singer,et al.  Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models , 1998 .

[39]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The effects of age and cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and speech reception in noise. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Effect of speech material on the benefit of temporal fine structure information in speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects , 2010 .

[41]  L. Humes The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[42]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive Spare Capacity as a Window on Hearing Aid Benefit , 2013, Seminars in Hearing.

[43]  P. Loizou,et al.  Factors influencing intelligibility of ideal binary-masked speech: implications for noise reduction. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  James M Kates,et al.  Effects of noise and distortion on speech quality judgments in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  David Rogosa,et al.  Longitudinal Data Analysis Examples With Random Coefficient Models , 1995 .

[47]  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..

[48]  T. Houtgast,et al.  A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria , 1985 .

[49]  James M. Kates,et al.  The Hearing-Aid Speech Quality Index (HASQI) Version 2 , 2014 .

[50]  Barbara Ohlenforst,et al.  Exploring the Relationship Between Working Memory, Compressor Speed, and Background Noise Characteristics , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[51]  Chantal Laroche,et al.  Frequency selectivity in workers with noise-induced hearing loss , 1992, Hearing Research.

[52]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  James M Kates,et al.  Determining Perceived Sound Quality in a Simulated Hearing Aid Using the International Speech Test Signal , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[54]  Jan de Leeuw,et al.  Introducing Multilevel Modeling , 1998 .

[55]  I M Noordhoek,et al.  Effect of reducing temporal intensity modulations on sentence intelligibility. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[56]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[57]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment , 2003, International journal of audiology.