Using the phase inversion method and loudness comparisons for the evaluation of noise reduction algorithms in hearing aids

Husstedt, Hendrik; Kreyenhagen, Jannine; Langhof, Laura; Kreikemeier, Steffen; Denk, Florian; Wollermann, Simone; Frenz, Marlitt

doi:10.1051/aacus/2021036

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, signal processing in hearing aids includes various features to reduce noise and/or increase the desired signals, i.e., mostly speech. Common features are directional microphones, gain reduction for noise [3], noise reduction for speech enhancement (NRSE) [3,4], wind noise reduction, and impulse noise reduction (INR). In addition, other general features of hearing aids such as multiple hearing aid channels with compression (CR) and an output limiter (OL) can also be helpful to reduce negative effects of noise for hearing aid users [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of impulse noise reduction in hearing aids with technical measurements and ratings of discomfort

Husstedt,

Hilgerdenaar,

Frenz

et al. 2023

Acta Acust.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short, impulse-like sounds such as slamming of a door or rattle of dishes can be uncomfortable for hearing aid users. Therefore, many hearing aids provide impulse (or transient) noise reduction (INR) that should reduce loud and short sounds without impairing desired signals. In this work, we want to address the question whether hearing aid users require this type of signal processing to experience impulse sounds similarly as normal-hearing listeners. For this purpose, we evaluated INR in six commercially available hearing aids with technical measurements and with test subjects. During the technical evaluation, we presented seven different impulse signals to the hearing aids attached to a head and torso simulator (HATS) and determined the C-weighted peak sound pressure levels (LC,peak) at the output in different configurations. For the evaluation with test subjects, the discomfort of the same impulse sounds was rated by 24 hearing-impaired and 20 normal-hearing subjects. All subjects rated the discomfort unaided, and the hearing-impaired subjects also while successively wearing all six hearing aids with and without activated INR. As a main conclusion, hearing aid users without INR did not experience more discomfort compared to normal-hearing listeners for most of the impulse signals tested including the most uncomfortable ones, but INR further reduced experienced discomfort. Moreover, the technical measurements were correlated with the subjective ratings on discomfort.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of impulse noise reduction in hearing aids with technical measurements and ratings of discomfort

Husstedt,

Hilgerdenaar,

Frenz

et al. 2023

Acta Acust.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

(Luftleitungs‑)Hörsysteme – Indikation, Bauformen und Einsatzmöglichkeiten

Husstedt¹,

Schönweiler

2022

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verification of Estimated Output Signal-to-Noise Ratios From a Phase Inversion Technique Using a Simulated Hearing Aid

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for speech presented in background noise may vary after being processed by digital hearing aids with nonlinear signal processing algorithms, such as wide dynamic range compression (WDRC). A phase inversion technique has been previously developed to assess the output SNR of hearing aids. However, systematic validations of this technique have not been conducted. This study aims to validate the phase inversion technique. Method: A simulated hearing aid with multichannel WDRC was implemented, from which the output SNRs, computed via shadow filtering, for connected speech in background noise were directly computed. The agreement between the shadow filter output SNRs and those estimated using the phase inversion technique for the same stimuli was utilized to validate the phase inversion technique. The background noise was 2- or 20-talker babble noise, and the speech stimuli were presented at SNRs of −10 to +10 dB at the input of the simulated hearing aid. The simulated hearing aid was configured to provide amplification for four representative audiograms, and the WDRC was set to be fast or slow acting. To investigate the effects of additive noise, independent of the presented noise stimulus, on the phase inversion estimated output SNR, the same simulated hearing aid was implemented with an additive Gaussian noise at its input (45 and 60 dB SPL). Results: Results showed that the phase inversion technique could either overestimate or underestimate output SNR, depending on the test condition; the estimation errors tended to coincide with temporal landmarks, such as natural pauses between consecutive sentences or fricatives; and increasing the simulated noise led to poorer estimates of output SNR. Conclusions: Results imply that the accuracy of the phase inversion technique is dependent on the test conditions. Thus, the phase inversion technique should be used with caution, and its validity should be evaluated further.

show abstract

Using the phase inversion method and loudness comparisons for the evaluation of noise reduction algorithms in hearing aids

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Evaluation of impulse noise reduction in hearing aids with technical measurements and ratings of discomfort

Evaluation of impulse noise reduction in hearing aids with technical measurements and ratings of discomfort

(Luftleitungs‑)Hörsysteme – Indikation, Bauformen und Einsatzmöglichkeiten

Verification of Estimated Output Signal-to-Noise Ratios From a Phase Inversion Technique Using a Simulated Hearing Aid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About