Literature DB >> 22874643

Perceptual effects of noise reduction with respect to personal preference, speech intelligibility, and listening effort.

Inge Brons1, Rolph Houben, Wouter A Dreschler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Most modern hearing aids use noise reduction to increase listening comfort in noisy environments. However, it is unclear whether perceptual effects (e.g., intelligibility, listening effort, and preference) of noise reduction differ among hearing aids and among listeners. The authors compared perceptual scores across different hearing aid noise-reduction systems to determine (1) whether noise-reduction systems differ perceptually and (2) which factors underlie the overall preference of individual listeners.
DESIGN: The authors recorded hearing aid noise-reduction outputs and used these signals in a laboratory experiment. The recording method allowed the evaluation of noise reduction in an isolated form, without the dominant effects of hearing aid frequency response and interactions with dynamic-range compression. Ten normal-hearing subjects listened to speech in babble noise processed by noise reduction from four different hearing aids. The subjects performed (1) speech-intelligibility tests, (2) listening-effort ratings, and (3) paired-comparison ratings with respect to noise annoyance, speech naturalness, and overall preference.
RESULTS: Noise-reduction systems from different hearing aids differed in the degree to which they influenced the noise annoyance and speech naturalness perceived by the normal-hearing listeners. Small differences in intelligibility and effort scores were found among different noise-reduction systems but not between having noise reduction on and off. Subjects differed in whether their overall preference was more strongly related to noise annoyance or to speech naturalness.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that noise annoyance and speech naturalness are determining factors for the overall preference of normal-hearing listeners for a specific noise-reduction condition, and found individual differences in the preferred weighting of these factors even in a homogeneous group of normal-hearing listeners. Subsequent experiments should include hearing-impaired subjects to determine whether these conclusions also hold for a more heterogeneous group of listeners. If these results can be extrapolated to hearing-impaired listeners, the fitting and fine-tuning of noise reduction in hearing aids needs considerable revision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22874643     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31825f299f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  22 in total

1.  Effects of noise reduction on AM perception for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  D Timothy Ives; Sridhar Kalluri; Olaf Strelcyk; Stanley Sheft; Franck Miermont; Arnaud Coez; Eric Bizaguet; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-05

2.  Quantifying the Range of Signal Modification in Clinically Fit Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Varsha Rallapalli; Melinda Anderson; James Kates; Lauren Balmert; Lynn Sirow; Kathryn Arehart; Pamela Souza
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Classification of Hearing Aids Into Feature Profiles Using Hierarchical Latent Class Analysis Applied to a Large Dataset of Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Simon Lansbergen; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort.

Authors:  Jani A Johnson; Jingjing Xu; Robyn M Cox
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Neurodynamic evaluation of hearing aid features using EEG correlates of listening effort.

Authors:  Corinna Bernarding; Daniel J Strauss; Ronny Hannemann; Harald Seidler; Farah I Corona-Strauss
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 5.082

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

Authors:  Paul Reinhart; Pavel Zahorik; Pamela Souza
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Marc A Brennan; Dawna Lewis; Ryan McCreery; Judy Kopun; Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  A Potential Bias in Subjective Ratings of Mental Effort.

Authors:  Travis M Moore; Erin M Picou
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Subjective criteria underlying noise-tolerance in the presence of speech.

Authors:  Carol L Mackersie; Nahae Kayden Kim; Stephanie A Lockshaw; Megan N Nash
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Syed Shabih Hasan; Sean DeVries; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.