Trends in Amplification

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bentler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiou, L.-K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bentler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiou, L.-K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Trends in Amplification, Vol. 10, No. 2, 67-82 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1084713806289514

Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview

Ruth Bentler, PhD

Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 ruth-bentler{at}uiowa.edu

Li-Kuei Chiou

Department of Speech Pathology & Audiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Digital noise reduction schemes are being used in most hearing aids currently marketed. Unlike the earlier analog schemes, these manufacturer-specific algorithms are developed to acoustically analyze the incoming signal and alter the gain/output characteristics according to their predetermined rules. Although most are modulation-based schemes (ie, differentiating speech from noise based on temporal characteristics), spectral subtraction techniques are being applied as well. The purpose of this article is to overview these schemes in terms of their differences and similarities.

Key Words: digital noise reduction • amplification • algorithms • onset time

References

  • Bentler RA, Anderson CV, Niebuhr D, Getta J. A longitudinal study of noise reduction circuits, I: objective measures. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:808-819.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Warner RL, Bentler RA. Threshold of discomfort for complex stimuli: acoustic and sound quality predictors. J Speech Hear Res. 2002;45:1016-1026.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bentler RA, Anderson CV, Niebuhr D, Getta J. A longitudinal study of noise reduction circuits, II: subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:820-831.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bentler RA. "Satisfaction" with current noise-reduction circuits.Am J Audiol. 1993;2:51-53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Dillon H, Lovegrove R. Single microphone noise reduction systems for hearing aids: a review and evaluation. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon; 1993:353-372.
  • Kuk F, Tyler R, Mims L. Subjective ratings of noise reduction hearing aids. Scand Audiol. 1990;19:237-244.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kuk FK, Plager A, Pape NM. Hollowness perception with noise-reduction hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1992;3(1):39-45.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Van Tasell DJ, Larsen SY, Fabry DA. Effects of an adaptive filter hearing aid on speech recognition in noise by hearing impaired subjects. Ear Hear. 1988;36: 808-819.
  • Gabrielsson A, Lindstrom B. Perceived sound quality of high fidelity loudspeakers. J Audio Eng Soc. 1985;33:33-53.
  • Wiener N. Interpolation, Extrapolation, and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series. New York, NY: J Wiley; 1949.
  • Levitt H, Bakke M, Kates J, Neuman A, Weiss M. Advanced signal processing hearing aids. In: Beilen J, Jensen GR, eds. Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology: Proceedings of the 15th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Stougaard Jensen; 1993:247-254.
  • Weiss M, Aschkenasy E. Automatic Detection and Enhancement of Speech Signals. Grifiss Air Force Base, NY: Rome Air Development Center; 1975. Report No. RADC-TR-75-77.
  • Boll SF. Suppression of acoustic noise in speech using spectral subtraction. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech. 1979;27:113-120.[CrossRef]
  • Plomp R. Perception of speech as a modulated signal. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Utrecht, 1-6 August, 1983. Utrecht, the Netherlands: The Congress; 1983:29-40.
  • Mueller HG, Ricketts TA. Digital noise reduction: much ado about something? Hear J. 2005;58:10-17.
  • Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westerman S. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology. 2001;40:148-157.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Chung K. Challenges in recent developments in hearing aids, I: speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends Amplif. 2004;8:83-124.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National Standard Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. New York, NY: ANSI; 1996.
  • Bentler RA. Noise Reduction: how and how much? Presented at: American Auditory Society; March 5-7, 2006; Scottsdale, Ariz.
  • Studebaker GA, Marincovich PJ. Importance weighted audibility and the recognition of hearing aid-processed speech. Ear Hear. 1989;10:101-108.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Humes LE, Riker S. Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index. Ear Hear. 1992;13:406-409.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Souza PE, Yueh B, Sarubbi MS, Loovis CF. Fitting hearing aids with the Articulation Index: impact on hearing aid effectiveness. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(4):1-13.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Plyler PN, Hill AB, Trine TD. The effects of expansion on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:101-113.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Plyler PN, Hill AB, Trine TD. The effects of expansion time constants on the objective performance of hearing instrument users. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:614-621.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Wouters J. Multimicrophone and adaptive strategies. Hear J. 2003;56(11):48-51.
  • Maj J-B, Moonen M, Wouters J. SVD-based optimal filtering technique for noise reduction in hearing aids using two microphones. J Appl Signal Proc. 2002;4:432-443.
  • Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Amer Acad Audol. 2005;16: 477-488.
  • Ricketts TA, Hornsby BWY. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing "digital noise reduction." J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16:270-277.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Alcantara JI, Moore BC, Kuhnel V, Launer S. Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol. 2003;42:34-42.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality.Audiology. 2000;39:260-268.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995;16:176-186.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BWY. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif. 2006;10:83-93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Palmer CV, Bentler R, Mueller HG. Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends Amplif. 2006;10:95-104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
A. C. Neuman
From the Editor
Trends in Amplification, March 1, 2007; 11(1): 5 - 6.
[PDF]

Home page
 TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
H. G. Mueller, J. Weber, and B. W.Y. Hornsby
The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise.
Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2006; 10(2): 83 - 93.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 TRENDS AMPLIFHome page
C. V. Palmer, R. Bentler, and H. G. Mueller
Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds.
Trends in Amplification, June 1, 2006; 10(2): 95 - 104.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bentler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiou, L.-K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bentler, R.
Right arrow Articles by Chiou, L.-K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?