Literature DB >> 25985016

Relationship Among Signal Fidelity, Hearing Loss, and Working Memory for Digital Noise Suppression.

Kathryn Arehart1, Pamela Souza, James Kates, Thomas Lunner, Michael Syskind Pedersen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study considered speech modified by additive babble combined with noise-suppression processing. The purpose was to determine the relative importance of the signal modifications, individual peripheral hearing loss, and individual cognitive capacity on speech intelligibility and speech quality.
DESIGN: The participant group consisted of 31 individuals with moderate high-frequency hearing loss ranging in age from 51 to 89 years (mean = 69.6 years). Speech intelligibility and speech quality were measured using low-context sentences presented in babble at several signal-to-noise ratios. Speech stimuli were processed with a binary mask noise-suppression strategy with systematic manipulations of two parameters (error rate and attenuation values). The cumulative effects of signal modification produced by babble and signal processing were quantified using an envelope-distortion metric. Working memory capacity was assessed with a reading span test. Analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of signal processing parameters on perceptual scores. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to determine the role of degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity in individual listener response to the processed noisy speech. The model also considered improvements in envelope fidelity caused by the binary mask and the degradations to envelope caused by error and noise.
RESULTS: The participants showed significant benefits in terms of intelligibility scores and quality ratings for noisy speech processed by the ideal binary mask noise-suppression strategy. This benefit was observed across a range of signal-to-noise ratios and persisted when up to a 30% error rate was introduced into the processing. Average intelligibility scores and average quality ratings were well predicted by an objective metric of envelope fidelity. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity were significant factors in explaining individual listener's intelligibility scores for binary mask processing applied to speech in babble. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity did not predict listeners' quality ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that envelope fidelity is a primary factor in determining the combined effects of noise and binary mask processing for intelligibility and quality of speech presented in babble noise. Degree of hearing loss and working memory capacity are significant factors in explaining variability in listeners' speech intelligibility scores but not in quality ratings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25985016      PMCID: PMC4549215          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000173

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


  37 in total

1.  Analysis of speech-based Speech Transmission Index methods with implications for nonlinear operations.

Authors:  Ray L Goldsworthy; Julie E Greenberg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--1. Patterns of benefit.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Graham Naylor; Claus Elberling
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--2. Patterns of candidature.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Graham Naylor; Claus Elberling
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  An algorithm to improve speech recognition in noise for hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Eric W Healy; Sarah E Yoho; Yuxuan Wang; DeLiang Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Perceptual effects of noise reduction by time-frequency masking of noisy speech.

Authors:  Inge Brons; Rolph Houben; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users.

Authors:  Elaine Hoi Ning Ng; Mary Rudner; Thomas Lunner; Michael Syskind Pedersen; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Exploring the Relationship Between Working Memory, Compressor Speed, and Background Noise Characteristics.

Authors:  Barbara Ohlenforst; Pamela E Souza; Ewen N MacDonald
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings?

Authors:  Tobias Neher; Giso Grimm; Volker Hohmann; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Working memory, age, and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion.

Authors:  Kathryn H Arehart; Pamela Souza; Rosalinda Baca; James M Kates
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The importance for speech intelligibility of random fluctuations in "steady" background noise.

Authors:  Michael A Stone; Christian Füllgrabe; Robert C Mackinnon; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  9 in total

1.  Limitations of the Envelope Difference Index as a Metric for Nonlinear Distortion in Hearing Aids.

Authors:  James M Kates
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  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

4.  The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.

Authors:  Emily M H Lundberg; Song Hui Chon; James M Kates; Melinda C Anderson; Kathryn H Arehart
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Perceived Sound Quality Dimensions Influencing Frequency-Gain Shaping Preferences for Hearing Aid-Amplified Speech and Music.

Authors:  Jonathan M Vaisberg; Steve Beaulac; Danielle Glista; Ewan A Macpherson; Susan D Scollie
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  The Effects of Task Difficulty Predictability and Noise Reduction on Recall Performance and Pupil Dilation Responses.

Authors:  Andreea Micula; Jerker Rönnberg; Lorenz Fiedler; Dorothea Wendt; Maria Cecilie Jørgensen; Ditte Katrine Larsen; Elaine Hoi Ning Ng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec 01       Impact factor: 3.562

7.  Influence of Three Auditory Profiles on Aided Speech Perception in Different Noise Scenarios.

Authors:  Mengfan Wu; Oscar M Cañete; Jesper Hvass Schmidt; Michal Fereczkowski; Tobias Neher
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 8.  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

9.  Cognitive Processing Speed, Working Memory, and the Intelligibility of Hearing Aid-Processed Speech in Persons with Hearing Impairment.

Authors:  Wycliffe Kabaywe Yumba
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-08-15
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.