| Literature DB >> 34228256 |
Abstract
A reconfigurable hearing aid is a generic type that can be used for various hearing disabilities without modifying the device hardware. This requires several trials to identify the best matching with the impaired person's audiogram. The objective of this paper is to propose a novel reconfigurable hearing aid of low complexity with auto-adapting capability which makes it suitable for different types of hearing disabilities ranging from mild to severe intensities. The audio spectrum is divided into three regions and for each region, four different schemes are proposed. An automatic selection of the optimum scheme is proposed for all the regions based on hearing thresholds. Octave and fractional interpolation techniques are performed on a Parks-McClellan based prototype filter to generate the various sub-bands in the reconfigurable filter bank structure. The proposed structure uses only 18 coefficient multipliers which save up to 92% of multipliers when compared to other designs. The delay and matching errors are within the globally accepted limits. The hardware implementation executed on Xilinx Kintex-7 FPGA development board has reaffirmed that the structure is compact and power-efficient. The proposed auto-reconfigurable structure can be used for various types of hearing impairments and can avoid the manual interventions for the selection of schemes in audiogram matching. This in turn minimizes the time to establish the best match with the audiogram. Since the proposed structure has minimal complexity, cost-effective implementation of the device is also possible.Entities:
Keywords: Audiogram; Auto-reconfigurable; Filter bank; Hearing aid; Matching error; Multirate system
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34228256 PMCID: PMC8258494 DOI: 10.1007/s13246-021-01030-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Phys Eng Sci Med ISSN: 2662-4729
Equations used for generating octave and fractional interpolated filters
| Interpolation factor, L | Decimation factor, D | Filter representations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 4 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 8 | 1 | |
| 2 | 3 | |
| 4 | 3 |
Number of bands and bandwidths in different schemes
| Scheme | Number of bands | Bandwidth | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | ||
| Scheme 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Scheme 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Scheme 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Scheme 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | |
Fig. 1Magnitude responses of octave and fractional interpolated filters
Fig. 2Sub-bands of scheme 1, scheme 2, scheme 3, and scheme 4 in different regions
Slope values in different regions
| Region | Frequency range | Slope values |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0–2.67 kHz | |
| 2 | 2.67 kHz–5.34 kHz | |
| 3 | 5.34 kHz–8 kHz |
Fig. 3Structure of the proposed system
Fig. 4Test audiograms used for evaluation purposes [36, 37]
Selection of optimal transition width of the prototype filter
| Transition width | Passband edge, | Stopband edge, | Filter order | Multipliers required | MME (dB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1000 | .2834 | .3834 | 62 | 31 | 4.08 |
| 0.1125 | .2771 | .3896 | 55 | 28 | 3.82 |
| 0.1250 | .2709 | .3959 | 49 | 25 | 3.51 |
| 0.1375 | .2646 | .4021 | 45 | 23 | 3.13 |
| 0.1500 | .2584 | .4084 | 41 | 21 | 2.78 |
| 0.1625 | .2521 | .4146 | 38 | 19 | 2.47 |
| 0.1750 | .2459 | .4209 | 35 | 18 | 2.28 |
| 0.1875 | .2396 | .4271 | 33 | 17 | 2.36 |
| 0.2000 | .2334 | .4334 | 30 | 16 | 2.49 |
Comparison of group delay of the proposed system with existing methods
| Method | Type of filter bank | Number of bands | Maximum delay (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANSI S1.11 Filter bank[ | Fixed | 18 | 31 |
| Quasi-ANSI S1.11 Filter bank[ | Fixed | 18 | 10 |
| Frequency Response Masking [ | Fixed | 8 | 26.6 |
| Variable Bandwidth Filters [ | Reconfigurable | 4 to 10 | 1.1 |
| Fractional Interpolation (FI) [ | Reconfigurable | 3 to 12 | 21.6 |
| Two-level FI [ | Reconfigurable | 3 to 13 | 18.5 |
| Proposed method | Reconfigurable | 3 to 17 | 18.54 |
Comparison of audiogram matching errors
| Test audiogram | Type of hearing loss (HL) | Method in [ | Method in [ | Method in [ | Proposed method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audiogram 1 left ear | Mild HL in high freq | 3.13 dB | 2.98 dB | 2.69 dB | 2.61 dB |
| Audiogram 1 right ear | Mild HL in all freq | 2.83 dB | 2.67 dB | 2.32 dB | 2.28 dB |
| Audiogram 2 left ear | Mild HL in all freq | 2.01 dB | 2.14 dB | 2.71 dB | 1.89 dB |
| Audiogram 2 right ear | Mild HL in all freq | 1.84 dB | 3.17 dB | 2.18 dB | 1.91 dB |
| Audiogram 3 left ear | Mild HL in high freq | 5.27 dB | 3.76 dB | 2.77 dB | 2.90 dB |
| Audiogram 3 right ear | Mild HL in high freq | 5.63 dB | 3.82 dB | 2.92 dB | 2.83 dB |
| Audiogram 4 left ear | Mild HL in all freq | 3.12 dB | 2.90 dB | 2.86 dB | 2.41 dB |
| Audiogram 4 right ear | Mild HL in all freq | 3.41 dB | 3.19 dB | 2.41 dB | 2.32 dB |
| Audiogram 5 left ear | Moderate HL in all freq | 2.98 dB | 2.87 dB | 2.85 dB | 2.37 dB |
| Audiogram 5 right ear | Moderate HL in all freq | 3.26 dB | 3.08 dB | 2.79 dB | 2.84 dB |
| Audiogram 6 left ear | Profound HL in all freq | 2.43 dB | 2.39 dB | 2.62 dB | 2.31 dB |
| Audiogram 6 right ear | Profound HL in all freq | 2.22 dB | 2.62 dB | 2.41 dB | 2.38 dB |
Fig. 5Magnitude responses of the filter banks with optimum scheme and the matching results
Scheme selection and maximum delay in audiogram matching
| Test audiogram | Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Delay (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audiogram 1 left ear | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 2 | 4.00 |
| Audiogram 1 right ear | Scheme 1 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 1 | 1.09 |
| Audiogram 2 left ear | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | 4.00 |
| Audiogram 2 right ear | Scheme 2 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | 4.00 |
| Audiogram 3 left ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | Scheme 3 | 18.54 |
| Audiogram 3 right ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 4 | Scheme 4 | 18.54 |
| Audiogram 4 left ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | 8.36 |
| Audiogram 4 right ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | 8.36 |
| Audiogram 5 left ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | 8.36 |
| Audiogram 5 right ear | Scheme 3 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | 8.36 |
| Audiogram 6 left ear | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 1 | 4.00 |
| Audiogram 6 right ear | Scheme 2 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 1 | 4.00 |
Comparison of complexity of the proposed structure with existing methods
| Audiogram matching method | Total no. of multipliers (#mult) | Complexity reduction percentage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANSI S1.11 Filter bank [ | 24 | 1 | 60 | 138 | 86.9 % |
| Quasi-ANSI S1.11 Filter bank [ | 24 | 1 | 60 | 226 | 92.0 % |
| Frequency Response Masking [ | 16 | 0.0001 | 80 | 30 | 40.0 % |
| Cosine Modulation [ | 16 | 0.01 | 110 | 63 | 71.4 % |
| Variable Bandwidth Filters [ | 16 | 0.05 | 80 | 216 | 91.6 % |
| Modified DFT [ | 16 | 0.001 | 85 | 84 | 78.5 % |
| Fractional Interpolation (FI) [ | 16 | 0.005 | 50 | 76 | 76.3 % |
| Two-level FI [ | 16 | 0.005 | 50 | 67 | 73.1 % |
| Proposed method | 16 | 0.05 | 50 | 18 | — |
Fig. 6Comparison of auditory compensation methods
Fig. 7Hardware implementation of the proposed octave and fractional interpolated filters. (a) Hardware implementation of octave interpolated filters. (b) Hardware implementation of fractional interpolated filters
Device and power utilization
| Utilization data | Structure in [ | Structure in [ | Proposed structure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of slice registers | 5376 | 4557 | 3016 |
| Number of LUTs | 13092 | 11511 | 7985 |
| Number of FF pairs | 4160 | 3378 | 2467 |
| Power at 16 kHz (Watt) | 0.470 | 0.470 | 0.398 |