ReviewHearing research2022
An overview of the HASPI and HASQI metrics for predicting speech intelligibility and speech quality for normal hearing, hearing loss, and hearing aids.
Review in Hearing research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Contemporary Review of Clinical Factors Involved in Speech-Perspectives from a Prosthodontist Point of View.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Extending the Hearing-Aid Speech Perception Index (HASPI): Keywords, sentences, and context.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- A review of auditory processing and cognitive change during normal ageing, and the implications for setting hearing aids for older adults.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Modeling the Intelligibility Benefit of Active Noise Cancelation in Hearing Devices That Improve Signal-to-Noise Ratio.Trends in hearingArticle
- Objective Evaluation of a Deep Learning-Based Noise Reduction Algorithm for Hearing Aids Under Diverse Fitting and Listening Conditions.Trends in hearingArticle
- A Binaural Front End for Speech Intelligibility Models: Application to the Hearing-Aid Speech Perception Index (HASPI).Trends in hearingArticle
- Evaluation of deep marginal feedback cancellation for hearing aids using speech and music.Trends in hearingArticle
- Sixty Years of Frequency-Domain Monaural Speech Enhancement: From Traditional to Deep Learning Methods.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alterations of the speech signal, including additive noise and nonlinear distortion, can reduce speech intelligibility and quality. Hearing aids present an especially complicated situation since these devices may implement nonlinear processing designed to compensate for the hearing loss. Hearing-aid processing is often realized as time-varying multichannel gain adjustments, and may also include frequency reassignment. The challenge in designing metrics for hearing aids and hearing-impaired listeners is to accurately model the perceptual trade-offs between speech audibility and the nonlinear distortion introduced by hearing-aid processing. This paper focuses on the Hearing Aid Speech Perception Index (HASPI) and the Hearing Aid Speech Quality Index (HASQI) as representative metrics for predicting intelligibility and quality. These indices start with a model of the auditory periphery that can be adjusted to represent hearing loss. The peripheral model, the speech features computed from the model outputs, and the procedures used to fit the features to subject data are described. Examples are then presented for using the metrics to measure the effects of additive noise, evaluate noise-suppression processing, and to measure the differences among commercial hearing aids. Open questions and considerations in using these and related metrics are then discussed.
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.