Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(01): 017-029
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18048
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Interactions Between Digital Noise Reduction and Reverberation: Acoustic and Behavioral Effects

Paul Reinhart
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
,
Pavel Zahorik
†   Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
,
Pamela Souza
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
‡   Knowles Hearing Center, Evanston, IL
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 February 2019

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Digital noise reduction (DNR) processing is used in hearing aids to enhance perception in noise by classifying and suppressing the noise acoustics. However, the efficacy of DNR processing is not known under reverberant conditions where the speech-in-noise acoustics are further degraded by reverberation.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to investigate acoustic and perceptual effects of DNR processing across a range of reverberant conditions for individuals with hearing impairment.

Research Design:

This study used an experimental design to investigate the effects of varying reverberation on speech-in-noise processed with DNR.

Study Sample:

Twenty-six listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing impairment participated in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Speech stimuli were combined with unmodulated broadband noise at several signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A range of reverberant conditions with realistic parameters were simulated, as well as an anechoic control condition without reverberation. Reverberant speech-in-noise signals were processed using a spectral subtraction DNR simulation. Signals were acoustically analyzed using a phase inversion technique to quantify improvement in SNR as a result of DNR processing. Sentence intelligibility and subjective ratings of listening effort, speech naturalness, and background noise comfort were examined with and without DNR processing across the conditions.

Results:

Improvement in SNR was greatest in the anechoic control condition and decreased as the ratio of direct to reverberant energy decreased. There was no significant effect of DNR processing on speech intelligibility in the anechoic control condition, but there was a significant decrease in speech intelligibility with DNR processing in all of the reverberant conditions. Subjectively, listeners reported greater listening effort and lower speech naturalness with DNR processing in some of the reverberant conditions. Listeners reported higher background noise comfort with DNR processing only in the anechoic control condition.

Conclusions:

Results suggest that reverberation affects DNR processing using a spectral subtraction algorithm in such a way that decreases the ability of DNR to reduce noise without distorting the speech acoustics. Overall, DNR processing may be most beneficial in environments with little reverberation and that the use of DNR processing in highly reverberant environments may actually produce adverse perceptual effects. Further research is warranted using commercial hearing aids in realistic reverberant environments.

Key Words

acoustics - digital noise reduction - reverberation - speech perception

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health Grants F31 DC015373 to Paul Reinhart, R01 DC008168 to Pavel Zahorik and R01 DC006014 to Pamela Souza.


Portions of this work were presented at the 173rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Boston, MA, June 2017, and the 30th Annual Conference of the American Academy of Audiology, Nashville, TN, April 2018.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alcántara JI, Moore BC, Kühnel V, Launer S. 2003; Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid: evaluación del sistema de reducción de ruido en un auxiliar auditivo digital comercial. Int J Audiol 42 (01) 34-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Allen JB, Berkley DA. 1979; Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 65 (04) 943-950
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Arehart KH, Hansen JH, Gallant S, Kalstein L. 2003; Evaluation of an auditory masked threshold noise suppression algorithm in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Speech Commun 40 (04) 575-592
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Arslan L, McCree A, Viswanathan V. 1995 New methods for adaptive noise suppression. ICASSP-95. 1995 International Conference on Acoust, Speech, Signal Process 1:812–815. Detroit, MI: IEEE.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bentler R, Chiou LK. 2006; Digital noise reduction: an overview. Trends Amplif 10 (02) 67-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bentler R, Wu YH, Kettel J, Hurtig R. 2008; Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol 47 (08) 447-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bertoli S, Staehelin K, Zemp E, Schindler C, Bodmer D, Probst R. 2009; Survey on hearing aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants. Int J Audiol 48 (04) 183-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boll S. 1979; Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 27 (02) 113-120
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Boymans M, Dreschler WA. 2000; Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality: estudios de campo utilizando un audifono digital con reduccion activa del ruido y micrófono de direccionalidad dual. Audiology 39 (05) 260-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. 1997. Discourse Comprehension Test: Test Manual. Bar Harbor, ME: BRK Publishers;
    Google Scholar
  • Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. 2013; Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort. Ear Hear 34 (01) 29-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. 2014; Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear 18: 2331216514553924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. 2001; NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 12 (01) 37-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. 2014; The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults. Ear Hear 35 (06) 600-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Edwards B. 2007; The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplif 11 (01) 31-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gustafson S, McCreery R, Hoover B, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz P. 2014; Listening effort and perceived clarity for normal hearing children with the use of digital noise reduction. Ear Hear 35 (02) 183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hagerman B, Olofsson Å. 2004; A method to measure the effect of noise reduction algorithms using simultaneous speech and noise. Acta Acustica united Acustica 90 (02) 356-361
    Google Scholar
  • Hicks CB, Tharpe AM. 2002; Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45 (03) 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE, Rogers SE, Main AK, Kinney DL. 2018; The acoustic environments in which older adults wear their hearing aids: insights from datalogging sound environment classification. Am J Audiol 27 (04) 594-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • IEEE 1969 IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements; IEEE Report No. 297
    PubMed
  • Jamieson DG, Brennan RL, Cornelisse LE. 1995; Evaluation of a speech enhancement strategy with normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 16 (03) 274-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Johnson J, Xu J, Cox R, Pendergraft P. 2015; A comparison of two methods for measuring listening effort as part of an audiologic test battery. Am J Audiol 24 (03) 419-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kates JM. 2008. Digital Hearing Aids. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2000; MarkeTrak V: “why my hearing aids are in the drawer”: the consumers’ perspective. Hear J 53 (02) 34-36
    Google Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2007; MarkeTrak VII: obstacles to adult non‐user adoption of hearing aids. Hear J 60 (04) 24-51
    Google Scholar
  • Levitt H. 2001; Noise reduction in hearing aids: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 38 (01) 111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Martellotta F. 2010; The just noticeable difference of center time and clarity index in large reverberant spaces. J Acoust Soc Am 128 (02) 654-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCloy DR, Wright RA, Souza PE. 2015; Talker versus dialect effects on speech intelligibility: a symmetrical study. Lang Speech 58 (03) 371-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McCormack A, Fortnum H. 2013; Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?. Int J Audiol 52 (05) 360-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. 2006; The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 10 (02) 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nábělek AK, Letowski TR, Tucker FM. 1989; Reverberant overlap‐and self‐masking in consonant identification. J Acoust Soc Am 86 (04) 1259-1265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ng EH, Rudner M, Lunner T, Rönnberg J. 2015; Noise reduction improves memory for target language speech in competing native but not foreign language speech. Ear Hear 36 (01) 82-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Reinhart PN, Souza PE. 2016; Intelligibility and clarity of reverberant speech: effects of wide dynamic range compression release time and working memory. J Speech Lang Hear Res 59 (06) 1543-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Reinhart PN, Souza PE, Srinivasan NK, Gallun FJ. 2016; Effects of reverberation and compression on consonant identification in individuals with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 37 (02) 144-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. 2005; Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (05) 270-277
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Rudner M, Foo C, Lunner T. 2008; Cognition counts: a working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU). Int J Audiol 47 (2, Suppl) S99-S105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström O, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. 2013; The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 7: 1-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sabine WC. 1922. Collected Papers on Acoustics. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. 2009; Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (05) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. 2015; Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (02) 183-196
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J. 2009; The signal‐cognition interface: interactions between degraded auditory signals and cognitive processes. Scand J Psychol 50 (05) 385-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Lang Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wightman FL, Kistler DJ. 1999; Resolution of front–back ambiguity in spatial hearing by listener and source movement. J Acoust Soc Am 105 (05) 2841-2853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zahorik P. 2009; Perceptually relevant parameters for virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 126 (02) 776-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar