Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview

Palchik, Eugene; Bakken, Andrew M.; Saad, Nael; Saad, Wael A.; Davies, Mark G.

doi:10.1177/1084713806289514

Cited by 121 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Great efforts are made in the development of effective noise reduction systems in hearing aids in order to improve this (e.g., Liu et al, 2012;Bentler & Chiou, 2006;Wouters et al, 2002).…”

Section: Environmental Factors (E)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective

Granberg

Pronk

Swanepoel

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To explore areas of functioning, disability and environmental factors of adults with hearing loss (HL) by using the ICF classification as a tool to determine and document each element. Design: A qualitative study applying mainly focus-group methodology was applied). Conclusions: The present study illustrates the complexity and comprehensiveness of aspects involved in functioning and disability of adults with HL. The findings highlight the necessity of using a multidimensional tool, such as the ICF, where both internal and external aspects are valued and considered in the analysis.

show abstract

“…Great efforts are made in the development of effective noise reduction systems in hearing aids in order to improve this (e.g., Liu et al, 2012;Bentler & Chiou, 2006;Wouters et al, 2002).…”

Section: Environmental Factors (E)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective

Granberg

Pronk

Swanepoel

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include, for example, adults with (1) hearing aids (Bentler & Chiou, 2006), (2) cochlear implants (Lorenzi, Gilbert, Carn, Garnier, & Moore, 2006;Shannon, Fu, Galvin, & Friesen, 2004), (3) intellectual disabilities, especially Down syndrome (MeuweseJongejeugd et al, 2006), and (4) autism spectrum disorder (O'Connor, 2012). Approximately 55% of high school graduates diagnosed with disabilities pursue postsecondary education such as university or other post-high school training (e.g., vocational/technical schools; Institute of Education Sciences, 2011), placing them in the same noisy environment as students without disabilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density on Adults' Word Learning in Noisy Conditions

Han

Storkel

Lee

et al. 2016

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Noisy conditions make auditory processing difficult. This study explores whether noisy conditions influence the effects of phonotactic probability (the likelihood of occurrence of a sound sequence) and neighborhood density (phonological similarity among words) on adults' word learning. Method: Fifty-eight adults learned nonwords varying in phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in either an unfavorable (0-dB signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]) or a favorable (+8-dB SNR) listening condition. Word learning was assessed using a picture naming task by scoring the proportion of phonemes named correctly. Results: The unfavorable 0-dB SNR condition showed a significant interaction between phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in the absence of main effects. In particular, adults learned more words when phonotactic probability and neighborhood density were both low or both high. The +8-dB SNR condition did not show this interaction. These results are inconsistent with those from a prior adult word learning study conducted under quiet listening conditions that showed main effects of word characteristics. Conclusions: As the listening condition worsens, adult word learning benefits from a convergence of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Clinical implications are discussed for potential populations who experience difficulty with auditory perception or processing, making them more vulnerable to noise.

show abstract

“…Although some studies (6,7,8) report that these features are important to improve understanding in noisy environments, the evidences found do not clarify whether the elderly can benefit from these settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In order to improve speech intelligibility, and hence, the performance of its members, hearing aids noise reduction algorithms and different types of microphones have been developed and incorporated to hearing aids, which have the purpose to reduce the signal/noise in the environment (4,5) . The noise reduction algorithms are meant to attenuate the intensity of noise, when it exceeds a certain proportion in relation to the speech signal (6,7) , which may promote speech intelligibility, reduce the discomfort to the sounds and the effort to listen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percepção de fala no ruído em idosos usuários de próteses auditivas com diferentes microfones e algoritmo de redução de ruído

Santos

Costa

2016

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition in noise on elderly, new users of hearing aids with directional microphones and noise reduction, and check which feature provides better speech intelligibility. Methods: The participants were 36 individuals between 60 and 87 years old with sensorineural hearing loss from mild to moderately severe. The Sentence List test in Brazilian Portuguese was applied, in sound field, obtaining the Sentence Recognition in Noise Percentage Rates (SRNPR) with hearing aids, with four different settings: omnidirectional microphone (OM); noise reduction and omnidirectional microphone (NR + OM); directional microphone (DM); and the noise reduction and directional microphone (NR + DM). Results: When speech and noise focused at 0°/0° azimuth, SRNPR median scores were 76.74% with the use of OM; 84.95% with NR + OM; 84.40% with DM and 86.63% with NR + DM. When comparing results, there were differences between OM x DM; OM x NR + DM; NR + OM and DM; NR+ OM and NR+ DM. When noise focused at 0°/180° azimuth, the SRNPR median were 77.4% with the use of OM; 83.79% with NR + OM; 89.46% with DM and 91.9 with NR + DM. When comparing results, there were differences between the performances with OM e DM; OM and NR + DM; NR + OM and DM; and NR + OM and NR + DM. Conclusion: Better results were found with the use of NR and DM in both situations of assessment, however, in the situation with noise at 0°/180° azimuth the DM provided a more satisfactory performance. Keywords

show abstract

Digital Noise Reduction: An Overview

Cited by 121 publications

References 27 publications

The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective

The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: Functioning and disability from the patient perspective

The Effects of Phonotactic Probability and Neighborhood Density on Adults' Word Learning in Noisy Conditions

Percepção de fala no ruído em idosos usuários de próteses auditivas com diferentes microfones e algoritmo de redução de ruído

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About