PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ruth Bentler

Publications and source records attributed to Ruth Bentler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Digital noise reduction: an overview.

Digital noise reduction schemes are being used in most hearing aids currently marketed. Unlike the earlier analog schemes, these manufacturer-specific algorithms are developed to acoustically analyze the incoming signal and alter the gain/output characteristics according to their predetermined rules. Although most are modulation-based schemes (ie, differentiating speech from noise based on temporal characteristics), spectral subtraction techniques are being applied as well. The purpose of this article is to overview these schemes in terms of their differences and similarities.

Algorithms↗

Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds.

Hearing aid users report difficulties using their hearing aids in noisy environments. Problems include understanding speech, loudness discomfort, and annoyance with background noise. Digital noise reduction algorithms have been promoted as a method to solve speech understanding and comfort in noise problems. Research has failed to find improved speech understanding in noise. Little is known about how digital noise reduction affects noise annoyance and aversiveness. The goals of this investigation were to determine how a specific digital noise reduction system affects hearing aid users' perception of noise annoyance and aversiveness and to compare their perceptions to those of normal-hearing listeners. Ratings of noise annoyance and of aversiveness were obtained from 49 participants with moderate sensorineural hearing loss before fitting and after 3 weeks of hearing aid use. Findings were compared to measures obtained from normal-hearing listeners. Perceived annoyance and aversiveness increased with amplification. Annoyance and aversiveness with the hearing aid approximated normal perception. The results of this investigation suggest the need for counseling patients about realistic expectations related to annoyance and aversiveness of sounds at the time of hearing aid fitting.

Adult↗

Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: I. Speech perception outcomes.

This clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the benefit obtained from hearing aids employing second-order adaptive directional microphone technology, used in conjunction with digital noise reduction. Data were collected for 49 subjects across two sites. New and experienced hearing aid users were fit bilaterally with behind-the-ear hearing aids using the National Acoustics Laboratory-Nonlinear version 1 (NAL-NL1) prescriptive method with manufacturer default settings for various parameters of signal processing (e.g., noise reduction, compression, etc.). Laboratory results indicated that (1) for the stationary noise environment, directional microphones provided better speech perception than omnidirectional microphones, regardless of the number of microphones; and (2) for the moving noise environment, the three-microphone option (whether in adaptive or fixed mode) and the two-microphone option in its adaptive mode resulted in better performance than the two-microphone fixed mode, or the omnidirectional modes.

Adult↗

Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: II. Self-report outcomes.

This clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the subjective benefit obtained from hearing aids employing automatic switching second-order adaptive directional microphone technology, used in conjunction with digital noise reduction, as compared to a fixed directional microphone or omnidirectional microphone response with the same digital noise reduction. Data were collected for 49 participants across two sites. Both new and experienced hearing aid users were fit bilaterally with behind-the-ear hearing aids using the NAL-NL1 (National Acoustics Laboratory-Nonlinear version 1) prescriptive method with manufacturer default settings for various signal processing (e.g., noise reduction, compression parameters, etc.). During ten days of hearing aid use, participants responded to daily journal questions. Subjective ratings for each of the three hearing aid responses (omnidirectional, automatic-adaptive directional, and automatic-fixed directional) were similar. Overall preference for a microphone condition was equally distributed between no preference, omnidirectional, and automatic adaptive and/or fixed directional.

Adult↗

Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals.

OBJECTIVE: A primary purpose of fitting hearing aids is to improve the audibility of speech; however, hearing aid gain is typically measured by using standardized nonspeech signals, e.g., swept pure tones, speech-weighted broadband noise, or modulated noise. When compression hearing aids are tested with these nonspeech input signals, the measured gain can be substantially different than if a real speech input signal were used. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of release time, compression ratio, and number of compression channels, as well as interactions of these parameters, on the gain difference between several common nonspeech hearing aid test signals and speech. It was hypothesized that the difference in hearing aid gain between static nonspeech signals and speech would increase as release time, compression ratio, and number of channels increased. DESIGN: Speech and several common nonspeech hearing aid test signals, matched at overall root-mean-square levels corresponding to average (65 dB SPL) and loud (80 dB SPL) conversational speech, were input into a master hearing aid circuit, and the gain of the circuit was measured in one-third octave bands. The hearing aid was programmed as a moderate-gain (23 dB) wide dynamic range compression instrument with a compression threshold of 50 dB SPL. The release time, compression ratio, and number of compression channels of the circuit were systematically adjusted by programming software. The one-third octave band gain differences between the nonspeech signals and speech were measured for all combinations of the compression settings. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the effects of each compression parameter, and interactions of the parameters, on the gain difference between each nonspeech signal and speech. RESULTS: One-third octave band gain differences between nonspeech and speech signals (calculated as nonspeech signal minus speech signal) ranged from -3.1 to 10.4 dB, depending on frequency, nonspeech test signal, and input signal level. In most cases, the compression parameters accounted for more than 70% of the variance in gain differences between the speech and nonspeech signals. At an input level of 65 dB, increases in the release time and compression ratio led to an increase in the gain difference between most nonspeech signals and speech at most frequencies. Increases in the number of channels caused an increase in the gain difference when the spectra of the nonspeech signals differed from the speech spectrum. The effects of release time and number of channels increased as the compression ratio increased. At an 80 dB input level, increasing the compression ratio led to a decrease in the gain difference between the nonspeech signals and speech. Release time and number of channels had little to no effect at the higher input level. CONCLUSIONS: The compression parameters of release time, compression ratio, and number of compression channels explain most of the variance in differences in hearing aid gain between nonspeech and speech signals. It may be cumbersome, however, to quantitatively define this relationship for all hearing aid circuits. It is therefore recommended that hearing aid "use" gain or output be measured with a real speech signal. If a nonspeech signal must be used, then it should have spectral and temporal properties that are similar to speech.

Acoustic Stimulation↗