Literature DB >> 25010636

Perceptual consequences of different signal changes due to binaural noise reduction: do hearing loss and working memory capacity play a role?

Tobias Neher1, Giso Grimm, Volker Hohmann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In a previous study, ) investigated whether pure-tone average (PTA) hearing loss and working memory capacity (WMC) modulate benefit from different binaural noise reduction (NR) settings. Results showed that listeners with smaller WMC preferred strong over moderate NR even at the expense of poorer speech recognition due to greater speech distortion (SD), whereas listeners with larger WMC did not. To enable a better understanding of these findings, the main aims of the present study were (1) to explore the perceptual consequences of changes to the signal mixture, target speech, and background noise caused by binaural NR, and (2) to determine whether response to these changes varies with WMC and PTA.
DESIGN: As in the previous study, four age-matched groups of elderly listeners (with N = 10 per group) characterized by either mild or moderate PTAs and either better or worse performance on a visual measure of WMC participated. Five processing conditions were tested, which were based on the previously used (binaural coherence-based) NR scheme designed to attenuate diffuse signal components at mid to high frequencies. The five conditions differed in terms of the type of processing that was applied (no NR, strong NR, or strong NR with restoration of the long-term stimulus spectrum) and in terms of whether the target speech and background noise were processed in the same manner or whether one signal was left unprocessed while the other signal was processed with the gains computed for the signal mixture. Comparison across these conditions allowed assessing the effects of changes in high-frequency audibility (HFA), SD, and noise attenuation and distortion (NAD). Outcome measures included a dual-task paradigm combining speech recognition with a visual reaction time (VRT) task as well as ratings of perceived effort and overall preference. All measurements were carried out using headphone simulations of a frontal target speaker in a busy cafeteria.
RESULTS: Relative to no NR, strong NR was found to impair speech recognition and VRT performance slightly and to improve perceived effort and overall preference markedly. Relative to strong NR, strong NR with restoration of the long-term stimulus spectrum and thus HFA did not affect speech recognition, restored VRT performance to that achievable with no NR, and increased perceived effort and reduced overall preference markedly. SD had negative effects on speech recognition and perceived effort, particularly when both speech and noise were processed with the gains computed for the signal mixture. NAD had positive effects on speech recognition, perceived effort, and overall preference, particularly when the target speech was left unprocessed. VRT performance was unaffected by SD and NAD. None of the datasets exhibited any clear signs that response to the different signal changes varies with PTA or WMC.
CONCLUSIONS: For the outcome measures and stimuli applied here, the present study provides little evidence that PTA or WMC affect response to changes in HFA, SD, and NAD caused by binaural NR. However, statistical power restrictions suggest further research is needed. This research should also investigate whether partial HFA restoration combined with some pre-processing that reduces co-modulation distortion results in a more favorable balance of the effects of binaural NR across outcome dimensions and whether NR strength has any influence on these results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25010636     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000054

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


  12 in total

1.  Understanding Variability in Individual Response to Hearing Aid Signal Processing in Wearable Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Kathryn Arehart; Tim Schoof; Melinda Anderson; Dorina Strori; Lauren Balmert
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech.

Authors:  Pamela E Souza; Kathryn H Arehart; Jing Shen; Melinda Anderson; James M Kates
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-07

3.  Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Inge Brons; Rolph Houben; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Are Experienced Hearing Aid Users Faster at Grasping the Meaning of a Sentence Than Inexperienced Users? An Eye-Tracking Study.

Authors:  Julia Habicht; Birger Kollmeier; Tobias Neher
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 5.  Effects of Hearing Impairment and Hearing Aid Amplification on Listening Effort: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Barbara Ohlenforst; Adriana A Zekveld; Elise P Jansma; Yang Wang; Graham Naylor; Artur Lorens; Thomas Lunner; Sophia E Kramer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  The Influence of Noise Reduction on Speech Intelligibility, Response Times to Speech, and Perceived Listening Effort in Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Maj van den Tillaart-Haverkate; Inge de Ronde-Brons; Wouter A Dreschler; Rolph Houben
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 7.  Behavioral Assessment of Listening Effort Using a Dual-Task Paradigm.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Gagné; Jana Besser; Ulrike Lemke
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users' preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality.

Authors:  Tobias Neher
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 9.  Working Memory and Hearing Aid Processing: Literature Findings, Future Directions, and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Kathryn Arehart; Tobias Neher
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-12-16

10.  The Effects of Hearing Aid Digital Noise Reduction and Directionality on Acceptable Noise Level.

Authors:  Roghayeh Ahmadi; Hamid Jalilvand; Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi; Fatemeh Ahmadi; Ali Reza Akbarzade Baghban
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 3.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.