ArticleTrends in hearing
Transient Noise Reduction Using a Deep Recurrent Neural Network: Effects on Subjective Speech Intelligibility and Listening Comfort.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A deep recurrent neural network (RNN) for reducing transient sounds was developed and its effects on subjective speech intelligibility and listening comfort were investigated. The RNN was trained using sentences spoken with different accents and corrupted by transient sounds, using the clean speech as the target. It was tested using sentences spoken by unseen talkers and corrupted by unseen transient sounds. A paired-comparison procedure was used to compare all possible combinations of three conditions for subjective speech intelligibility and listening comfort for two relative levels of the transients. The conditions were: no processing (NP); processing using the RNN; and processing using a multi-channel transient reduction method (MCTR). Ten participants with normal hearing and ten with mild-to-moderate hearing loss participated. For the latter, frequency-dependent linear amplification was applied to all stimuli to compensate for individual audibility losses. For the normal-hearing participants, processing using the RNN was significantly preferred over that for NP for subjective intelligibility and comfort, processing using the RNN was significantly preferred over that for MCTR for subjective intelligibility, and processing using the MCTR was significantly preferred over that for NP for comfort for the higher transient level only. For the hearing-impaired participants, processing using the RNN was significantly preferred over that for NP for both subjective intelligibility and comfort, processing using the RNN was significantly preferred over that for MCTR for comfort, and processing using the MCTR was significantly preferred over that for NP for comfort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.