Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34985356›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Speech recognition with a hearing-aid processing scheme combining beamforming with mask-informed speech enhancement.

Tim Green, Gaston Hilkhuysen, Mark Huckvale, Stuart Rosen, Mike Brookes, Alastair Moore, Patrick Naylor, Leo Lightburn, Wei Xue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tim GreenDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, 4919UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4517-5192
Gaston HilkhuysenDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, 4919UCL, London, UK.
Mark HuckvaleDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, 4919UCL, London, UK.
Stuart RosenDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, 4919UCL, London, UK.
Mike BrookesDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4615Imperial College, London, UK.
Alastair MooreDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4615Imperial College, London, UK.
Patrick NaylorDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4615Imperial College, London, UK.
Leo LightburnDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4615Imperial College, London, UK.
Wei XueDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4615Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A signal processing approach combining beamforming with mask-informed speech enhancement was assessed by measuring sentence recognition in listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing impairment in adverse listening conditions that simulated the output of behind-the-ear hearing aids in a noisy classroom. Two types of beamforming were compared: binaural, with the two microphones of each aid treated as a single array, and bilateral, where independent left and right beamformers were derived. Binaural beamforming produces a narrower beam, maximising improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), but eliminates the spatial diversity that is preserved in bilateral beamforming. Each beamformer type was optimised for the true target position and implemented with and without additional speech enhancement in which spectral features extracted from the beamformer output were passed to a deep neural network trained to identify time-frequency regions dominated by target speech. Additional conditions comprising binaural beamforming combined with speech enhancement implemented using Wiener filtering or modulation-domain Kalman filtering were tested in normally-hearing (NH) listeners. Both beamformer types gave substantial improvements relative to no processing, with significantly greater benefit for binaural beamforming. Performance with additional mask-informed enhancement was poorer than with beamforming alone, for both beamformer types and both listener groups. In NH listeners the addition of mask-informed enhancement produced significantly poorer performance than both other forms of enhancement, neither of which differed from the beamformer alone. In summary, the additional improvement in SNR provided by binaural beamforming appeared to outweigh loss of spatial information, while speech understanding was not further improved by the mask-informed enhancement method implemented here.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsSpeech PerceptionHearingHumansNoiseSpeechbinaural hearingcocktail party listeningHearing lossspatial hearing

Identifiers

PMID34985356
PMCPMC8744079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.