The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners

2001 ◽  
Vol 109 (6) ◽  
pp. 2964-2973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Y. Hornsby ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Compression Ratio ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio

Effects of Adaptive Hearing Aid Directionality and Noise Reduction on Masked Speech Recognition for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Browning ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Mary Flaherty ◽  
Tim Vallier ◽  
Lori J. Leibold
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Fully Adaptive ◽  
Noise Ratio

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech recognition associated with activation of a fully adaptive directional hearing aid algorithm in children with mild to severe bilateral sensory/neural hearing loss. Method Fourteen children (5–14 years old) who are hard of hearing participated in this study. Participants wore laboratory hearing aids. Open-set word recognition thresholds were measured adaptively for 2 hearing aid settings: (a) omnidirectional (OMNI) and (b) fully adaptive directionality. Each hearing aid setting was evaluated in 3 listening conditions. Fourteen children with normal hearing served as age-matched controls. Results Children who are hard of hearing required a more advantageous signal-to-noise ratio than children with normal hearing to achieve comparable performance in all 3 conditions. For children who are hard of hearing, the average improvement in signal-to-noise ratio when comparing fully adaptive directionality to OMNI was 4.0 dB in noise, regardless of target location. Children performed similarly with fully adaptive directionality and OMNI settings in the presence of the speech maskers. Conclusions Compared to OMNI, fully adaptive directionality improved speech recognition in steady noise for children who are hard of hearing, even when they were not facing the target source. This algorithm did not affect speech recognition when the background noise was speech. Although the use of hearing aids with fully adaptive directionality is not proposed as a substitute for remote microphone systems, it appears to offer several advantages over fixed directionality, because it does not depend on children facing the target talker and provides access to multiple talkers within the environment. Additional experiments are required to further evaluate children's performance under a variety of spatial configurations in the presence of both noise and speech maskers.

Adaptation of the BKB-SIN Test for Use as a Pediatric Aided Outcome Measure

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (06) ◽  
pp. 375-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stella L. Ng ◽  
Christine N. Meston ◽  
Susan D. Scollie ◽  
Richard C. Seewald
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Noise Ratio

Background: There is a need for objective pediatric hearing aid outcome measurement and thus a need for the evaluation of outcome measures. We explored a commercially available pediatric sentence-in-noise measure adapted for use as an aided outcome measure. Purpose: The purposes of the current study were (1) to administer an adapted BKB-SIN (Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise test) to adults and children who have normal hearing and children who use hearing aids and (2) to evaluate the utility of this adapted BKB-SIN as an aided, within-subjects outcome measure for amplification strategies. Research Design: We used a mixed within and between groups design to evaluate speech recognition in noise for the three groups of participants. The children who use hearing aids were tested under the omnidirectional, directional, and digital noise reduction (DNR) conditions. Results from each group were compared to each other, and we compared results of each aided condition for the children who use hearing aids to evaluate the test utility as an aided outcome measure. Study Sample: The study sample consisted of 14 adults with normal hearing (aged 22–28 yr) and 15 children with normal hearing (aged 6–18 yr), recruited through word of mouth, and 14 children who use hearing aids (aged 9–16 yr) recruited from local audiology clinics. Data Collection and Analysis: List pairs of the BKB-SIN test were presented at 50 dB HL as follows: four list pairs to each participant with normal hearing, four list pairs in the omnidirectional condition, and two list pairs in the directional and DNR conditions. Children who use hearing aids were fitted bilaterally with laboratory devices and completed the BKB-SIN test aided. Data were plotted as mean percent of key words correct at each signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Further, we conducted an analysis of variance for group differences and within-groups for the three aided conditions. Results: Adult participants outperformed children with normal hearing, who outperformed the children who use hearing aids. SNR-50 (signal-to-noise ratio at which listener can obtain a speech recognition score of 50% correct) scores demonstrated reliability of the adapted test implementation. The BKB-SIN test measured significant differences in performance for omnidirectional versus directional microphone conditions but not between omnidirectional and DNR conditions. Conclusions: We conclude that the adapted implementation of the BKB-SIN test can be administered reliably and feasibly. Further study is warranted to develop norms for the adapted implementation as well as to determine if an adapted implementation can be sensitive to age effects. Until such norms are developed, clinicians should refrain from comparing results from the adapted test to the test manual norms and should instead use the adapted implementation as a within-subject measure.

scholarly journals Research on Speaker Recognition of DRNN in Different Noise Environment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
chaofeng lan ◽  
yuanyuan Zhang ◽  
hongyun Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Recurrent Neural Network ◽  
Speaker Recognition ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Rate ◽  
Noisy Environment ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Improved Model

Abstract This paper draws on the training method of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), By increasing the number of hidden layers of RNN and changing the layer activation function from traditional Sigmoid to Leaky ReLU on the input layer, the first group and the last set of data are zero-padded to enhance the effective utilization of data such that the improved reduction model of Denoise Recurrent Neural Network (DRNN) with high calculation speed and good convergence is constructed to solve the problem of low speaker recognition rate in noisy environment. According to this model, the random semantic speech signal with a sampling rate of 16 kHz and a duration of 5 seconds in the speech library is studied. The experimental settings of the signal-to-noise ratios are − 10dB, -5dB, 0dB, 5dB, 10dB, 15dB, 20dB, 25dB. In the noisy environment, the improved model is used to denoise the Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) and the Gammatone Frequency Cepstral Coefficents (GFCC), impact of the traditional model and the improved model on the speech recognition rate is analyzed. The research shows that the improved model can effectively eliminate the noise of the feature parameters and improve the speech recognition rate. When the signal-to-noise ratio is low, the speaker recognition rate can be more obvious. Furthermore, when the signal-to-noise ratio is 0dB, the speaker recognition rate of people is increased by 40%, which can be 85% improved compared with the traditional speech model. On the other hand, with the increase in the signal-to-noise ratio, the recognition rate is gradually increased. When the signal-to-noise ratio is 15dB, the recognition rate of speakers is 93%.

Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners

2004 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 2395-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Patricia A. Niquette ◽  
Gail I. Gudmundsen ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit ◽  
Shilpi Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Measuring Signal

Detection and Recognition of Stop Consonants by Normal.Hearing and Hearing Impaired Listeners

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 942-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Turner ◽  
David A. Fabry ◽  
Stephanie Barrett ◽  
Amy R. Horwitz
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Stop Consonants ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Masking Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Detection And Recognition

This study examined the possibility that hearing-impaired listeners, in addition to displaying poorer-than-normal recognition of speech presented in background noise, require a larger signal-to-noise ratio for the detection of the speech sounds. Psychometric functions for the detection and recognition of stop consonants were obtained from both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Expressing the speech levels in terms of their short-term spectra, the detection of consonants for both subject groups occurred at the same signal-to-noise ratio. In contrast, the hearing-impaired listeners displayed poorer recognition performance than the normal-hearing listeners. These results imply that the higher signal-to-noise ratios required for a given level of recognition by some subjects with hearing loss are not due in part to a deficit in detection of the signals in the masking noise, but rather are due exclusively to a deficit in recognition.

scholarly journals New Speech Compression Technique based on Filter Bank Design and Psychoacoustic Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 728-735
Author(s):  
Mourad Talbi ◽  
Med Salim Bouhlel
Keyword(s):  
Compression Ratio ◽  
Filter Bank ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Signals ◽  
Speech Compression ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Compression Technique ◽  
Psychoacoustic Model ◽  
Perceptual Evaluation ◽  
Noise Ratio

In this paper, a new speech compression technique is proposed. This technique applies a Psychoacoustic Model and a general approach for Filter Bank Design using optimization. It is evaluated and compared with a compression technique using a MDCT (Modified Discrete Cosine Transform) Filter Bank of 32 Filters and a Psychoacoustic Model. This evaluation and comparison is performed by calculating bits before and after compression, PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio), NRMSE (Normalized Root Mean Square Error), SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) and PESQ (Perceptual evaluation of speech quality) computations. The two techniques are tested and applied to a number of speech signals that are sampled at 8 kHz. The results obtained from this evaluation show that the proposed technique outperforms the second compression technique (based on a Psychoacoustic Model and MDCT filter Bank) in terms of Bits after compression and compression ratio. In fact, the proposed technique yields higher values for the compression ratio than the second compression technique. Moreover, the proposed compression technique presents reconstructed speech signals with acceptable perceptual qualities. This is justified by the values of SNR, PSNR and NRMSE and PESQ.

Fitting and Verification of Frequency Modulation Systems on Children with Normal Hearing

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 529-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Danielle Bryant ◽  
Katie Sanders ◽  
Nicole Baldus ◽  
Katherine Algier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
The Real ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Several recent investigations support the use of frequency modulation (FM) systems in children with normal hearing and auditory processing or listening disorders such as those diagnosed with auditory processing disorders, autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Friedreich ataxia, and dyslexia. The American Academy of Audiology (AAA) published suggested procedures, but these guidelines do not cite research evidence to support the validity of the recommended procedures for fitting and verifying nonoccluding open-ear FM systems on children with normal hearing. Documenting the validity of these fitting procedures is critical to maximize the potential FM-system benefit in the abovementioned populations of children with normal hearing and those with auditory-listening problems. Purpose: The primary goal of this investigation was to determine the validity of the AAA real-ear approach to fitting FM systems on children with normal hearing. The secondary goal of this study was to examine speech-recognition performance in noise and loudness ratings without and with FM systems in children with normal hearing sensitivity. Research Design: A two-group, cross-sectional design was used in the present study. Study Sample: Twenty-six typically functioning children, ages 5–12 yr, with normal hearing sensitivity participated in the study. Intervention: Participants used a nonoccluding open-ear FM receiver during laboratory-based testing. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed three laboratory tests: (1) real-ear measures, (2) speech recognition performance in noise, and (3) loudness ratings. Four real-ear measures were conducted to (1) verify that measured output met prescribed-gain targets across the 1000–4000 Hz frequency range for speech stimuli, (2) confirm that the FM-receiver volume did not exceed predicted uncomfortable loudness levels, and (3 and 4) measure changes to the real-ear unaided response when placing the FM receiver in the child’s ear. After completion of the fitting, speech recognition in noise at a –5 signal-to-noise ratio and loudness ratings at a +5 signal-to-noise ratio were measured in four conditions: (1) no FM system, (2) FM receiver on the right ear, (3) FM receiver on the left ear, and (4) bilateral FM system. Results: The results of this study suggested that the slightly modified AAA real-ear measurement procedures resulted in a valid fitting of one FM system on children with normal hearing. On average, prescriptive targets were met for 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz within 3 dB, and maximum output of the FM system never exceeded and was significantly lower than predicted uncomfortable loudness levels for the children. There was a minimal change in the real-ear unaided response when the open-ear FM receiver was placed into the ear. Use of the FM system on one or both ears resulted in significantly better speech recognition in noise relative to a no-FM condition, and the unilateral and bilateral FM receivers resulted in a comfortably loud signal when listening in background noise. Conclusions: Real-ear measures are critical for obtaining an appropriate fit of an FM system on children with normal hearing.

Speech Recognition in Nonnative versus Native English-Speaking College Students in a Virtual Classroom

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (05) ◽  
pp. 404-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy Neave-DiToro ◽  
Adrienne Rubinstein ◽  
Arlene C. Neuman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Nonnative Speakers ◽  
Mixed Design ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Classroom Acoustics ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
The Impact

Background: Limited attention has been given to the effects of classroom acoustics at the college level. Many studies have reported that nonnative speakers of English are more likely to be affected by poor room acoustics than native speakers. An important question is how classroom acoustics affect speech perception of nonnative college students. Purpose: The combined effect of noise and reverberation on the speech recognition performance of college students who differ in age of English acquisition was evaluated under conditions simulating classrooms with reverberation times (RTs) close to ANSI recommended RTs. Research Design: A mixed design was used in this study. Study Sample: Thirty-six native and nonnative English-speaking college students with normal hearing, ages 18–28 yr, participated. Intervention: Two groups of nine native participants (native monolingual [NM] and native bilingual) and two groups of nine nonnative participants (nonnative early and nonnative late) were evaluated in noise under three reverberant conditions (0.03, 0.06, and 0.08 sec). Data Collection and Analysis: A virtual test paradigm was used, which represented a signal reaching a student at the back of a classroom. Speech recognition in noise was measured using the Bamford–Kowal–Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test and signal-to-noise ratio required for correct repetition of 50% of the key words in the stimulus sentences (SNR-50) was obtained for each group in each reverberant condition. A mixed-design analysis of variance was used to determine statistical significance as a function of listener group and RT. Results: SNR-50 was significantly higher for nonnative listeners as compared to native listeners, and a more favorable SNR-50 was needed as RT increased. The most dramatic effect on SNR-50 was found in the group with later acquisition of English, whereas the impact of early introduction of a second language was subtler. At the ANSI standard’s maximum recommended RT (0.6 sec), all groups except the NM group exhibited a mild signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss. At the 0.8 sec RT, all groups exhibited a mild SNR loss. Conclusion: Acoustics in the classroom are an important consideration for nonnative speakers who are proficient in English and enrolled in college. To address the need for a clearer speech signal by nonnative students (and for all students), universities should follow ANSI recommendations, as well as minimize background noise in occupied classrooms. Behavioral/instructional strategies should be considered to address factors that cannot be compensated for through acoustic design.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document