An Integrative Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Algorithm Under Realistic Signal-to-Noise Ratios

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Christopher Slugocki ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone

Background: Many studies on the efficacy of directional microphones (DIRMs) and noise reduction (NR)algorithms were not conducted under realistic signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions. A Repeat–RecallTest (RRT) was developed previously to partially address this issue.<br />Purpose: This study evaluated whether the RRT could provide a more comprehensive understanding ofthe efficacy of a DIRM and NR algorithm under realistic SNRs. Possible interaction with listener workingmemory capacity (WMC) was assessed.<br />Research Design: This study uses a double-blind, within-subject repeated measures design.<br />Study Sample: Nineteen listeners with a moderate degree of hearing loss participated.<br />Data Collection and Analysis: The RRT was administered with participants wearing the study hearingaids (HAs) under two microphones (omnidirectional versus directional) by two NR (on versus off) conditions.Speech was presented from 0° at 75 dB SPL and a continuous noise from 180° at SNRs of 0, 5,10, and 15 dB. The order of SNR and HA conditions was counterbalanced across listeners. Each testcondition was completed twice in two 2-hour sessions separated by one month.<br />Results: The recall scores of listeners were used to group listeners into good and poor WMC groups.Analysis using linear mixed-effects models revealed significant effects of context, SNR, and microphonefor all four measures (repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time). NR was only significant on thelistening effort scale in the DIRM mode at an SNR of 5 dB. Listeners with good WMC performed better onall measures of the RRT and benefitted more from context. Although DIRM benefitted listeners with goodand poor WMC, the benefits differed by context and SNR.<br />Conclusions: The RRT confirmed the efficacy of DIRM and NR on several outcome measures underrealistic SNRs. It also highlighted interactions between WMC and sentence context on feature efficacy.<br />

scholarly journals An Integrative Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Directional Microphone and Noise-Reduction Algorithm under Realistic Signal-to-Noise Ratios

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (04) ◽  
pp. 262-270
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Christopher Slugocki ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

Abstract Background Many studies on the efficacy of directional microphones (DIRMs) and noise-reduction (NR) algorithms were not conducted under realistic signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions. A Repeat-Recall Test (RRT) was developed previously to partially address this issue. Purpose This study evaluated whether the RRT could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the efficacy of a DIRM and NR algorithm under realistic SNRs. Possible interaction with listener working memory capacity (WMC) was assessed. Research Design This study uses a double-blind, within-subject repeated measures design. Study Sample Nineteen listeners with a moderate degree of hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis The RRT was administered with participants wearing the study hearing aids (HAs) under two microphones (omnidirectional versus directional) by two NR (on versus off) conditions. Speech was presented from 0° at 75 dB SPL and a continuous noise from 180° at SNRs of 0, 5, 10, and 15 dB. The order of SNR and HA conditions was counterbalanced across listeners. Each test condition was completed twice in two 2-hour sessions separated by one month. Results The recall scores of listeners were used to group listeners into good and poor WMC groups. Analysis using linear mixed-effects models revealed significant effects of context, SNR, and microphone for all four measures (repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time). NR was only significant on the listening effort scale in the DIRM mode at an SNR of 5 dB. Listeners with good WMC performed better on all measures of the RRT and benefitted more from context. Although DIRM benefitted listeners with good and poor WMC, the benefits differed by context and SNR. Conclusions The RRT confirmed the efficacy of DIRM and NR on several outcome measures under realistic SNRs. It also highlighted interactions between WMC and sentence context on feature efficacy.

Efficacy of a Reverse Cardioid Directional Microphone

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 064-073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Denise Keenan
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise

Background: Directional microphones have been shown to improve a listener's ability to communicate in noise by improving the signal to noise ratio. However, their efficacy may be questioned in situations where the listener needs to understand speech originating from the back. Purpose: The goal of the study was to examine the performance of a directional microphone mode that has an automatic reverse cardioid polar pattern. Research Design: A single-blinded, factorial repeated-measures design was used to study the effect of microphone modes (reverse cardioid, omnidirectional, and front hypercardioid) and stimulus azimuths (front and back) on three outcome variables (aided thresholds, nonsense syllable identification in quiet, and sentence recognition in noise). Study Sample: Twenty adults with a mild-to-severe bilaterally symmetrical (±5 dB) sensorineural hearing loss participated. Intervention: Audibility in quiet was evaluated by obtaining aided sound field thresholds and speech identification at an input level of 50 dB SPL presented at 0 and 180° azimuths. In addition, speech understanding in noise was also assessed with the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented at both azimuths (0 and 180°) with a diffuse noise. Data Collection and Analysis: Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of microphone mode (omnidirectional, front hypercardioid, reverse cardioid) and stimulus azimuth (0°, 180°) on aided thresholds, nonsense syllable identification, and HINT performance. Results: Results with the reverse cardioid directional microphone in both quiet conditions were similar to the omnidirectional microphone. The results of the reverse cardioid microphone in noise were significantly better than the omnidirectional microphone and front hypercardioid microphone when speech was presented from the back (p < 0.001). Conclusions: These results support the possible benefits of a reverse cardioid directional microphone when used in specific listening situations.

Using the Repeat-Recall Test to Examine Factors Affecting Context Use

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Christopher Slugocki ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

Abstract Background The effect of context on speech processing has been studied using different speech materials and response criteria. The Repeat-Recall Test (RRT) evaluates listener performance using high context (HC) and low context (LC) sentences; this may offer another platform for studying context use (CU). Objective This article aims to evaluate if the RRT may be used to study how different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), hearing aid technologies (directional microphone and noise reduction), and listener working memory capacities (WMCs) interact to affect CU on the different measures of the RRT. Design Double-blind, within-subject repeated measures design. Study Sample Nineteen listeners with a mild-to-moderately severe hearing loss. Data Collection The RRT was administered with participants wearing the study hearing aids under two microphone (omnidirectional vs. directional) by two noise reduction (on vs. off) conditions. Speech was presented from 0 degree at 75 dB sound pressure level and a continuous speech-shaped noise from 180 degrees at SNRs of 0, 5, 10, and 15 dB. The order of SNR and hearing aid conditions was counterbalanced across listeners. Each test condition was completed twice in two 2-hour sessions separated by 1 month. Results CU was calculated as the difference between HC and LC sentence scores for each outcome measure (i.e., repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time). For all outcome measures, repeated measures analyses of variance revealed that CU was significantly affected by the SNR of the test conditions. For repeat, recall, and listening effort measures, these effects were qualified by significant two-way interactions between SNR and microphone mode. In addition, the WMC group significantly affected CU during recall and rating of listening effort, the latter of which was qualified by an interaction between the WMC group and SNR. Listener WMC affected CU on estimates of tolerable time as qualified by significant two-way interactions between SNR and microphone mode. Conclusion The study supports use of the RRT as a tool for measuring how listeners use sentence context to aid in speech processing. The degree to which context influenced scores on each outcome measure of the RRT was found to depend on complex interactions between the SNR of the listening environment, hearing aid features, and the WMC of the listeners.

scholarly journals Sentence Recognition in Noise and Perceived Benefit of Noise Reduction on the Receiver and Transmitter Sides of a BICROS Hearing Aid

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 980-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the past, bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BICROS) amplification incorporated omnidirectional microphones on the transmitter and receiver sides and some models utilized noise reduction (NR) on the receiver side. Little research has examined the performance of BICROS amplification in background noise. However, previous studies examining contralateral routing of signals (CROS) amplification have reported that the presence of background noise on the transmitter side negatively affected speech recognition. Recently, NR was introduced as a feature on the receiver and transmitter sides of BICROS amplification, which has the potential to decrease the impact of noise on the wanted speech signal by decreasing unwanted noise directed to the transmitter side. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to examine differences in the reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in a diffuse listening environment between unaided and three aided BICROS conditions (no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR) in the Tandem 16 BICROS. A secondary goal was to examine real-world subjective impressions of the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided. Research Design: A randomized block repeated measures single blind design was used to assess differences between no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR listening conditions. Study Sample: Twenty-one adult participants with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) and experience with BICROS amplification were recruited from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were fit with the National Acoustic Laboratories’ Nonlinear version 1 prescriptive target (NAL-NL1) with the Tandem 16 BICROS at the initial visit and then verified using real-ear insertion gain (REIG) measures. Participants acclimatized to the Tandem 16 BICROS for 4 wk before returning for final testing. Participants were tested utilizing HINT sentences examining differences in RTS between unaided and three aided listening conditions. Subjective benefit was determined via the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire between the Tandem 16 BICROS and unaided. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to analyze the results of the HINT and APHAB. Results: Results revealed no significant differences in the RTS between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. Subjective impressions using the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit with the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided for the Ease of Communication (EC), Background Noise (BN), and Reverberation (RV) subscales. Conclusions: The RTS was not significantly different between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. None of the three aided listening conditions were significantly different from unaided performance as has been reported for previous studies examining CROS hearing aids. Further, based on comments from participants and previous research studies with conventional hearing aids, manufacturers of BICROS amplification should consider incorporating directional microphones and independent volume controls on the receiver and transmitter sides to potentially provide further improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for patients with ASNHL.

The Effects of Noise Reduction Technologies on the Acceptance of Background Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (08) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Jones Lowery ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: Directional microphones (D-Mics) and digital noise reduction (DNR) algorithms are used in hearing aids to reduce the negative effects of background noise on performance. Directional microphones attenuate sounds arriving from anywhere other than the front of the listener while DNR attenuates sounds with physical characteristics of noise. Although both noise reduction technologies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if the use of these technologies in isolation or together affects acceptance of noise and/or preference for the end user when used in various types of background noise. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of D-Mic, DNR, or the combination of D-Mic and DNR on acceptance of noise and preference when listening in various types of background noise. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Thirty adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were obtained using no noise reduction technologies, D-Mic only, DNR only, and the combination of the two technologies (Combo) for three different background noises (single-talker speech, speech-shaped noise, and multitalker babble) for each listener. In addition, preference rankings of the noise reduction technologies were obtained within each background noise (1 = best, 3 = worst). Results: ANL values were significantly better for each noise reduction technology than baseline; and benefit increased significantly from DNR to D-Mic to Combo. Listeners with higher (worse) baseline ANLs received more benefit from noise reduction technologies than listeners with lower (better) baseline ANLs. Neither ANL values nor ANL benefit values were significantly affected by background noise type; however, ANL benefit with D-Mic and Combo was similar when speech-like noise was present while ANL benefit was greatest for Combo when speech spectrum noise was present. Listeners preferred the hearing aid settings that resulted in the best ANL value. Conclusion: Noise reduction technologies improved ANL for each noise type, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline ANL value. Improving an ANL with noise reduction technologies is noticeable to listeners, at least when examined in this laboratory setting, and listeners prefer noise reduction technologies that improved their ability to accept noise.

Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Directional Microphone Benefit and Preference

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 662-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Kenneth W. Grant ◽  
W. Van Summers ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Directional Hearing Aids

This study examined speech intelligibility and preferences for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aid processing across a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A primary motivation for the study was to determine whether SNR might be used to represent distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms based on scene analysis. Participants were current hearing aid users who either had experience with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids only or with manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Using IEEE/Harvard sentences from a front loudspeaker and speech-shaped noise from three loudspeakers located behind and to the sides of the listener, the directional advantage (DA) was obtained at 11 SNRs ranging from -15 dB to +15 dB in 3 dB steps. Preferences for the two microphone modes at each of the 11 SNRs were also obtained using concatenated IEEE sentences presented in the speech-shaped noise. Results revealed that a DA was observed across a broad range of SNRs, although directional processing provided the greatest benefit within a narrower range of SNRs. Mean data suggested that microphone preferences were determined largely by the DA, such that the greater the benefit to speech intelligibility provided by the directional microphones, the more likely the listeners were to prefer that processing mode. However, inspection of the individual data revealed that highly predictive relationships did not exist for most individual participants. Few preferences for omnidirectional processing were observed. Overall, the results did not support the use of SNR to estimate the effects of distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of the Directional Microphone in the ®Baha® Divino™

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (08) ◽  
pp. 546-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jessica Kerckhoff
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Great Difficulty ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) experience great difficulty listening to speech in noisy environments. A directional microphone (DM) could potentially improve speech recognition in this difficult listening environment. It is well known that DMs in behind-the-ear (BTE) and custom hearing aids can provide a greater signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in comparison to an omnidirectional microphone (OM) to improve speech recognition in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Studies examining the DM in bone anchored auditory osseointegrated implants (Baha), however, have been mixed, with little to no benefit reported for the DM compared to an OM. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the mean reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) in noise between the OM and DM in the Baha® Divino™. The RTS of these two microphone modes was measured utilizing two loudspeaker arrays (speech from 0° and noise from 180° or a diffuse eight-loudspeaker array) and with the better ear open or closed with an earmold impression and noise attenuating earmuff. Subjective benefit was assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) to compare unaided and aided (Divino OM and DM combined) problem scores. Research Design: A repeated measures design was utilized, with each subject counterbalanced to each of the eight treatment levels for three independent variables: (1) microphone (OM and DM), (2) loudspeaker array (180° and diffuse), and (3) better ear (open and closed). Study Sample: Sixteen subjects with USNHL currently utilizing the Baha were recruited from Washington University's Center for Advanced Medicine and the surrounding area. Data Collection and Analysis: Subjects were tested at the initial visit if they entered the study wearing the Divino or after at least four weeks of acclimatization to a loaner Divino. The RTS was determined utilizing Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in the R-Space™ system, and subjective benefit was determined utilizing the APHAB. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired samples t-test were utilized to analyze results of the HINT and APHAB, respectively. Results: Results revealed statistically significant differences within microphone (p < 0.001; directional advantage of 3.2 dB), loudspeaker array (p = 0.046; 180° advantage of 1.1 dB), and better ear conditions (p < 0.001; open ear advantage of 4.9 dB). Results from the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit for the Divino relative to unaided on the subscales of Ease of Communication (EC) (p = 0.037), Background Noise (BN) (p < 0.001), and Reverberation (RV) (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The Divino's DM provides a statistically significant improvement in speech recognition in noise compared to the OM for subjects with USNHL. Therefore, it is recommended that audiologists consider selecting a Baha with a DM to provide improved speech recognition performance in noisy listening environments.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Dual Variable Speed Compressor over a Single Fixed Speed Compressor

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 590-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Chris Slugocki ◽  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Eric Seper ◽  
Ole Hau
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Variable Speed ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Subjective Report ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Compression Speed

AbstractIt has been suggested that hearing-impaired listeners with a good working memory (WM) should be fitted with a compression system using short time constants (i.e., fast-acting compression [FAC]), whereas those with a poorer WM should be fitted with a longer time constant (i.e., slow-acting compression [SAC]). However, commercial hearing aids (HAs) seldom use a fixed speed of compression.The performance of a variable speed compression (VSC) system relative to a fixed speed compressor (FAC and SAC) on measures of speech intelligibility, recall, and subjective report of listening effort and tolerable time was evaluated. The potential interaction with the listeners’ WM capacity (WMC) was also examined.A double-blinded, repeated measures design.Seventeen HA wearers (16 with greater than one year HA experience) with a bilaterally symmetrical, mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.Participants wore the study HAs at three compression speeds (FAC, SAC, and VSC). Each listener was evaluated on the Office of Research in Clinical Amplification-nonsense syllable test (NST) at 50 dB SPL (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] = +15 dB), 65 dB SPL (SNR = +5 dB), 80 dB SPL (SNR = 0 dB), and a split (80 dB SPL–50 dB SPL) condition. Listeners were also evaluated on a Repeat Recall Test (RRT), where they had to repeat six short sentences (both high- and low-context sentences) after each was presented. Listeners recalled target words in all six sentences after they were presented. They also rated their listening effort and the amount of time they would tolerate listening under the specific condition. RRT sentences were presented at 75 dB SPL in quiet, as well as SNR = 0, 5, 10, and 15 dB. A Reading Span Test (RST) was also administered to assess listeners’ WMC. Analysis of variance using RST scores as a covariate was used to examine differences in listener performance among compressor speeds.Listener performance on the NST was similar among all three compression speeds at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL. Performance with FAC was significantly better than SAC for the split condition; however, performance did not differ between FAC and VSC or between SAC and VSC. Performance on the NST was not affected by listeners’ RST scores. On the RRT, there was no effect of compressor speed on measures of repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time. However, VSC resulted in significantly lower (better) speech reception threshold at the 85% correct recognition criterion (SRT85) than FAC and SAC. Listener RST scores significantly affected recall performance on the RRT but did not affect SRT85, repeat, listening effort, or tolerable time.These results suggest that the VSC, FAC, and SAC yield similar performance in most but not all test conditions. FAC outperforms SAC, where the stimulus levels change abruptly (i.e., split condition). The VSC yields a lower SRT85 than a fixed compression speed at a moderately high level with a favorable SNR. There is no interaction between compression speed and the participants’ WMC.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio Advantage of Binaural Hearing Aids and Directional Microphones under Different Levels of Reverberation

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins ◽  
William S. Yacullo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing Aids ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones ◽  
Different Levels

The signal-to-noise ratio necessary for a constant performance level was determined for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects under three levels of reverberation (0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 s) with monaural and binaural hearing aids having directional and omnidirectional microphones. Results indicated (a) a significant binaural advantage (2–3 dB) which was independent of microphone type and reverberation time, (b) a significant directional microphone advantage (3–4 dB) which was independent of hearing aid arrangement (monaural or binaural) but dependent on level of reverberation, (c) a significant reverberation effect which was larger than either the binaural or directional microphone effect, and (d) additive binaural and directional microphone advantages. The results suggest that the signal-to-noise ratio is optimized when binaural hearing aids with directional microphones are used in rooms with short reverberation times.

scholarly journals Noise reduction and signal-to-noise ratio improvement of atomic magnetometers with optical gradiometer configurations

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 6976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keigo Kamada ◽  
Yosuke Ito ◽  
Sunao Ichihara ◽  
Natsuhiko Mizutani ◽  
Tetsuo Kobayashi
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Noise Ratio
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document