2007
DOI: 10.1121/1.2731017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simulating listener errors in using genetic algorithms for perceptual optimization

Abstract: The genetic algorithm (GA) was previously suggested for fitting hearing aid or cochlear implant features by using listener’s subjective judgment. In the present study, two human factors that might affect the outcome of the GA when used for perceptual optimization were explored with simulations. Listeners with varying sensitivity in discriminating sentences of different intelligibility and with varying error rates in entering their judgment to the GA were simulated. A comparison of the simulation results with t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To date there have been very few efforts directly addressing this issue, although there are two procedures that have been previously investigated which could theoretically be used to do so. These procedures are the simplex procedure (e.g., Neuman et al, 1987; Preminger et al, 2000; Franck et al, 2004; Amlani and Shafer, 2009) and the genetic algorithm (e.g., Holland, 1975; Wakefield et al, 2005; Baskent and Edwards, 2007; Baskent et al, 2007 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To date there have been very few efforts directly addressing this issue, although there are two procedures that have been previously investigated which could theoretically be used to do so. These procedures are the simplex procedure (e.g., Neuman et al, 1987; Preminger et al, 2000; Franck et al, 2004; Amlani and Shafer, 2009) and the genetic algorithm (e.g., Holland, 1975; Wakefield et al, 2005; Baskent and Edwards, 2007; Baskent et al, 2007 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different genes are then compared with one another (via a paired-comparison procedure, for example) and the outcome of that comparison is used to determine whether a given ‘gene’ is used in the next set of comparisons according to the genetic algorithm used. This approach is theoretically very flexible, and thus far has been utilized with acoustic simulations of a cochlear implant (Baskent and Edwards, 2007; Baskent et al, 2007) as well as with cochlear implant patients themselves in both research (Wakefield et al, 2005) and clinical environments (Govaerts et al, 2010; Varenberg et al, 2011; Holmes et al, 2012). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In accordance with (12), this element had an average error of 1.573%. This is comparable to cochlear implants, where users are able to discriminate sentences with a deviation below 10% [37].…”
Section: Ga Execution Resultsmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Computational models personalized to patient-specific factors can predict the success of adaptation to neuroprosthetics, as seen in cochlear implant development [ 258 ]. As users adapt to implants, sensory remapping improves speech perception [ 5 ].…”
Section: Models For Neurorehabilitationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interactive genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms can support optimization of acoustic models at a more efficient rate of convergence than natural adaptation [ 259 , 260 ]. Models simulating listener errors can also be used to inform development of such algorithms [ 258 ]. Demonstrating the utility of integrating models into a patient-in-the-loop framework, self-selected acoustic models for cochlear implants tuned to individual parameters via method-of-adjustment outperform high-dimensional models [ 261 ].…”
Section: Models For Neurorehabilitationmentioning
confidence: 99%