ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2024
The Noise Reduction Algorithm May Not Compensate for the Degradation in Output Signal-to-Noise Ratio Caused by Wide Dynamic Range Compression.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2024. 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
purposeMost modern hearing aids (HAs) employ wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and noise reduction (NR) algorithms. It is known that the nonlinear effects of WDRC and NR cause changes to the output signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of an HA. However, the relative contributions of WDRC and NR to the nonlinear effects are not fully understood. The current study investigated (a) whether WDRC or NR dominates the nonlinear effects measured at the output of a digital HA and (b) whether the electroacoustic effectiveness of NR depends on WDRC parameters while input SNR and background noise are systematically varied.
methodTest stimuli were Connected Speech Test sentences in multitalker babble noise (2- or 20-talker), presented at input SNRs ranging from -10 to +10 dB. The HA was programmed using multiband WDRC set according to the National Acoustic Laboratories for Nonlinear HA fitting formula 2 prescriptive fits for four standard audiograms and two compression speeds. The NR algorithm of the HA was switched on or off in separate conditions. Nonlinear electroacoustic effects from the WDRC and NR algorithms were assessed by measuring the output SNR of the HA using a phase-inversion technique. To investigate whether there are other factors that may be important besides the output SNR, the Hearing Aid Speech Intelligibility Index and the Hearing Aid Speech Quality Index were applied to the recordings to generate inferences on aided speech intelligibility and perceived speech quality.
resultsResults showed that WDRC dominated the net nonlinear effect at low-input SNRs, and the net nonlinear effect of WDRC and NR was reduced at high-input SNRs. Results also showed that the effectiveness of NR depended on compression parameters. The effectiveness of NR was partially explained by the trend of Hearing Aid Speech Intelligibility Index and Hearing Aid Speech Quality Index scores, potentially indicating that the Hearing Aid Speech Intelligibility Index and Hearing Aid Speech Quality Index scores may capture factors that cannot be captured by the output SNR metric.
conclusionsResults suggest that the individual signal-processing stages in an HA should not be considered as independent. Electroacoustic evaluation of WDRC and NR algorithms in isolation is not sufficient to capture the combined nonlinear effect of the two algorithms. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25962541.
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.