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

Time-frequency masking is a method for noise reduction that is based on the time-frequency representation of a speech in noise signal. Depending on the estimated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), each time-frequency unit is either attenuated or not. A special type of a time-frequency mask is the ideal binary mask (IBM), which has access to the real SNR (ideal). The IBM either retains or removes each time-frequency unit (binary mask). The IBM provides large improvements in speech intelligibility and is a valuable tool for investigating how different factors influence intelligibility. This study extends the standard outcome measure (speech intelligibility) with additional perceptual measures relevant for noise reduction: listening effort, noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference. Four types of time-frequency masking were evaluated: the original IBM, a tempered version of the IBM (called ITM) which applies limited and non-binary attenuation, and non-ideal masking (also tempered) with two different types of noise-estimation algorithms. The results from ideal masking imply that there is a trade-off between intelligibility and sound quality, which depends on the attenuation strength. Additionally, the results for non-ideal masking suggest that subjective measures can show effects of noise reduction even if noise reduction does not lead to differences in intelligibility.

show abstract

“…As such, the subjects, the measurement procedures and the statistical methods are identical to those described in Brons et al (2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech

Brons

Houben

Dreschler

2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The NR algorithm, in its original form, causes musical noise. From recordings of NR in commercially available hearing aids, it appeared that no musical noise was audible in a selection of hearing aids (Brons et al, 2013). The main reason that musical noise is absent in hearing aids is that the designers have limited the maximum amount of gain reduction, as well as the number of frequency channels used.…”

Section: Signal Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These inconsistencies were likely caused by differences between NR systems and differences between listeners. For instance, NR systems from different hearing aids vary in the degree they reduce noise annoyance and affect speech naturalness (Brons et al, 2013). The reason for differences in preference may be that individual listeners differ in the way they balance the two aspects, noise annoyance and speech naturalness, in their personal preference for a specific NR system .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Brons

Dreschler

Houben

2014

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing-aid noise reduction should reduce background noise, but not disturb the target speech. This objective is difficult because noise reduction suffers from a trade-off between the amount of noise removed and signal distortion. It is unknown if this important trade-off differs between normal-hearing (NH) and hearing-impaired (HI) listeners. This study separated the negative effect of noise reduction (distortion) from the positive effect (reduction of noise) to allow the measurement of the detection threshold for noise-reduction (NR) distortion. Twelve NH subjects and 12 subjects with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. The detection thresholds for distortion were determined using an adaptive procedure with a three-interval, two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Different levels of distortion were obtained by changing the maximum amount of noise reduction. Participants were also asked to indicate their preferred NR strength. The detection threshold for overall distortion was higher for HI subjects than for NH subjects, suggesting that stronger noise reduction can be applied for HI listeners without affecting the perceived sound quality. However, the preferred NR strength of HI listeners was closer to their individual detection threshold for distortion than in NH listeners. This implies that HI listeners tolerate fewer audible distortions than NH listeners.

show abstract

“…These findings can be explained by the fact that the noise reduction algorithms attenuate the effort to listen, making aversive sounds less uncomfortable, improving the comfort of sounds, in general (15,16,17,18) and providing better sound quality (19,20) . Thus, the cognitive ability of the individuals is released (21) to perform auditory closure and, consequently, increase the chances of improving speech understanding, based on the context (22) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percepção de fala no ruído em idosos usuários de próteses auditivas com diferentes microfones e algoritmo de redução de ruído

Santos

Costa

2016

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition in noise on elderly, new users of hearing aids with directional microphones and noise reduction, and check which feature provides better speech intelligibility. Methods: The participants were 36 individuals between 60 and 87 years old with sensorineural hearing loss from mild to moderately severe. The Sentence List test in Brazilian Portuguese was applied, in sound field, obtaining the Sentence Recognition in Noise Percentage Rates (SRNPR) with hearing aids, with four different settings: omnidirectional microphone (OM); noise reduction and omnidirectional microphone (NR + OM); directional microphone (DM); and the noise reduction and directional microphone (NR + DM). Results: When speech and noise focused at 0°/0° azimuth, SRNPR median scores were 76.74% with the use of OM; 84.95% with NR + OM; 84.40% with DM and 86.63% with NR + DM. When comparing results, there were differences between OM x DM; OM x NR + DM; NR + OM and DM; NR+ OM and NR+ DM. When noise focused at 0°/180° azimuth, the SRNPR median were 77.4% with the use of OM; 83.79% with NR + OM; 89.46% with DM and 91.9 with NR + DM. When comparing results, there were differences between the performances with OM e DM; OM and NR + DM; NR + OM and DM; and NR + OM and NR + DM. Conclusion: Better results were found with the use of NR and DM in both situations of assessment, however, in the situation with noise at 0°/180° azimuth the DM provided a more satisfactory performance. Keywords

show abstract

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

Cited by 68 publications

References 23 publications

Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech

Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech

Detection threshold for sound distortion resulting from noise reduction in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

Percepção de fala no ruído em idosos usuários de próteses auditivas com diferentes microfones e algoritmo de redução de ruído

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About