Evaluation of a Binaural FMV Beamforming Algorithm in Noise Jeffery B. Larsen, Charissa R. Lansing, Robert C. Bilger, Bruce Wheeler, Sandeep Phatak, Nandini.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Considerations for the Development and Fitting of Hearing-Aids for Auditory-Visual Communication Ken W. Grant and Brian E. Walden Walter Reed Army Medical.
Advertisements

INTRODUCTION Human hearing and speech cover a wide frequency range from 20 to 20,000 Hz, but only a 300 to 3,400 Hz range is typically used for speech.
Comparative performance of an adaptive directional microphone and a multi-channel noise reduction system, in a digital hearing instrument Kevin CP Yuen.
Karen Iler Kirk PhD, Hearing Science, The University of Iowa –Speech perception & cochlear implants Professor, Dept. of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences.
Room Acoustics: implications for speech reception and perception by hearing aid and cochlear implant users 2003 Arthur Boothroyd, Ph.D. Distinguished.
Vocal Emotion Recognition with Cochlear Implants Xin Luo, Qian-Jie Fu, John J. Galvin III Presentation By Archie Archibong.
Interrupted speech perception Su-Hyun Jin, Ph.D. University of Texas & Peggy B. Nelson, Ph.D. University of Minnesota.
“The Effects of Classroom Amplification Systems on Early Elementary Students’ Academic Achievement, Attending Behavior, and Their Ability to Hear Their.
TOPIC 4 BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT MEASURES. The Audiometer Types Clinical Screening.
1 New Technique for Improving Speech Intelligibility for the Hearing Impaired Miriam Furst-Yust School of Electrical Engineering Tel Aviv University.
The use of FM systems with Cochlear Implants- How has research had an impact on practice? Sarah Flynn and Elizabeth Wood South of England Cochlear Implant.
Acoustical Society of America, Chicago 7 June 2001 Effect of Reverberation on Spatial Unmasking for Nearby Speech Sources Barbara Shinn-Cunningham, Lisa.
1 Recent development in hearing aid technology Lena L N Wong Division of Speech & Hearing Sciences University of Hong Kong.
Deborah Edwards, MS,CCC-A Dawn Ruley, AuD, CCC-A Advanced FM: Programming & Verification.
Department of Electrical Engineering | University of Texas at Dallas Erik Jonsson School of Engineering & Computer Science | Richardson, Texas ,
Amplification/Sensory Systems SPA 4302 Summer 2007.
Speech Segregation Based on Sound Localization DeLiang Wang & Nicoleta Roman The Ohio State University, U.S.A. Guy J. Brown University of Sheffield, U.K.
Normalization of the Speech Modulation Spectra for Robust Speech Recognition Xiong Xiao, Eng Siong Chng, and Haizhou Li Wen-Yi Chu Department of Computer.
V Telecommunications Industry AssociationTR XXX.
Fitting and Evaluation of FM Systems for Cochlear Implant Users Linda M. Thibodeau.
Harvey Dillon Director, National Acoustic Laboratories Parliamentary Breakfast Hearing Awareness Week, 2012 Hearing aids – how much do they really help?
Robert E. Novak Ph.D., CCC-A Clinical Professor- Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences Director of Clinical Education in Audiology and Interim.
Creating sound valuewww.hearingcrc.org Kelley Graydon 1,2,, Gary Rance 1,2, Dani Tomlin 1,2 Richard Dowell 1,2 & Bram Van Dun 1,4. 1 The HEARing Cooperative.
Nico De Clercq Pieter Gijsenbergh Noise reduction in hearing aids: Generalised Sidelobe Canceller.
From Auditory Masking to Supervised Separation: A Tale of Improving Intelligibility of Noisy Speech for Hearing- impaired Listeners DeLiang Wang Perception.
METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LITERATURE Low frequency information via a hearing aid has been shown to increase speech intelligibility in noise.
CAPD: ”Behavioral assessment”
2010/12/11 Frequency Domain Blind Source Separation Based Noise Suppression to Hearing Aids (Part 1) Presenter: Cian-Bei Hong Advisor: Dr. Yeou-Jiunn Chen.
Ekapol Chuangsuwanich and James Glass MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139,USA 2012/07/2 汪逸婷.
Speech Perception 4/4/00.
Reduced-bandwidth and distributed MWF-based noise reduction algorithms Simon Doclo, Tim Van den Bogaert, Jan Wouters, Marc Moonen Dept. of Electrical Engineering.
Sounds in a reverberant room can interfere with the direct sound source. The normal hearing (NH) auditory system has a mechanism by which the echoes, or.
Yi-zhang Cai, Jeih-weih Hung 2012/08/17 報告者:汪逸婷 1.
Will technological advances improve the outcome? Ruth Bentler University of iowa.
Hearing Research Center
1 EduLink S MultiFrequencySmartLink SX Importance of FM Systems and Product Overview Evert Dijkstra, Phonak Communications, Murten, Switzerland.
Fitting and Evaluation of FM Systems for HA Users.
A Biased Fault Attack on the Time Redundancy Countermeasure for AES Sikhar Patranabis, Abhishek Chakraborty, Phuong Ha Nguyen and Debdeep Mukhopadhyay.
Functional Listening Evaluations:
Katherine Morrow, Sarah Williams, and Chang Liu Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
Predicting the Intelligibility of Cochlear-implant Vocoded Speech from Objective Quality Measure(1) Department of Electrical Engineering, The University.
Figures for Chapter 8 Candidacy Dillon (2001) Hearing Aids.
TOPIC 3 OVERVIEW OF HEARING ASSESSMENT. Hearing Evaluation “The main purpose of the hearing evaluation is to define the nature and extent of the hearing.
Adaptive radio-frequency resource management for MIMO MC-CDMA on antenna selection Jingxu Han and Mqhele E Dlodlo Department of Electrical Engineering.
Motorola presents in collaboration with CNEL Introduction  Motivation: The limitation of traditional narrowband transmission channel  Advantage: Phone.
An Auditory Cortex Site Critical to Discrimination Learning Adam Duvel and Mike Gabriel Neural Pattern Analysis.
SOUND PRESSURE, POWER AND LOUDNESS
What can we expect of cochlear implants for listening to speech in noisy environments? Andrew Faulkner: UCL Speech Hearing and Phonetic Sciences.
An innovative approach to the remediation of Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) in children at Australian Hearing Karin Gillies 1, Sharon Cameron.
Danielle Werle Undergraduate Thesis Intelligibility and the Carrier Phrase Effect in Sinewave Speech.
Speech Audiometry Lecture 8.
Compensating cocktail party noise with binaural spatial segregation on a novel device targeting partial hearing loss Luca Giuliani 1, Sara Sansalone 2,
A COMPARISON OF wRECD AND RECD VALUES AND TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY
Speech and Singing Voice Enhancement via DNN
4aPPa32. How Susceptibility To Noise Varies Across Speech Frequencies
Introduction to CAPD: From A – Z, Referrals to Treatment
Bi-dialectalism: the investigation of the cognitive advantage and non-native dialect perception in noise Brittany Moore, Jackie Rayyan, & Lynn Gilbertson,
The Look of Sound: Acoustic Cancellation in Architecture
Consistent and inconsistent interaural cues don't differ for tone detection but do differ for speech recognition Frederick Gallun Kasey Jakien Rachel Ellinger.
Evaluation of Classroom Audio Distribution and Personal FM Systems
Fondazione Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy
Copyright © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Copyright © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Copyright © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
III. Analysis of Modulation Metrics IV. Modifications
FM Hearing-Aid Device Checkpoint 2
Fang Du, Dr. Christina L. Runge, Dr. Yi Hu. April 21, 2018
Hearing Spatial Detail
Effects of Lombard Reflex on Deep-Learning-Based
Presenter: Shih-Hsiang(士翔)
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of a Binaural FMV Beamforming Algorithm in Noise Jeffery B. Larsen, Charissa R. Lansing, Robert C. Bilger, Bruce Wheeler, Sandeep Phatak, Nandini Iyer, Mike Lockwood, William O’Brien, Doug Jones, and Albert S. Feng University of Illinois Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences Beckman Institute Research supported by NIH grant #DC04840

INTRODUCTION A Frequency Banded Minimum Variance (FMV) algorithm has been developed Preliminary investigations with the FMV in simulation have been promising Evaluation of the FMV in a multi-source environment is needed to demonstrate its effectiveness The primary question of this study is: How much benefit from the FMV is obtained in noisy environments beyond that provided by directional microphones alone?

GOALS OF THE CURRENT STUDY Determine if the positive results with FMV algorithm are maintained in a true multi- source environment with competing speech Quantify the SNR benefit of the FMV algorithm beyond that obtained from directional microphones alone Obtain data to validate improved intelligibility with FMV algorithm in noise over directional microphones alone Assess FMV performance in multiple jammer configurations and noise types

Setup of current preliminary investigation - Experiment #1 Dependent variables –SRT in quiet and in noise with spondaic words –SRT in quiet and in noise with HINT sentences (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) –Subject rated intelligibility of SIR passages (Cox & McDaniel, 1989) at a -4 dB SNR 5 listeners w/ NH ( years old) and 9 w/ SNHL (53 to 81 years old)

Setup #1 * Target Computer Real-time system Probe mic system Cardioid mics * * * * Reversed speech of four talkers speaking R-SPIN sentences at -40°, -20°, 20°, and 40° from target at 0° CD player

Setup of current preliminary investigation - Experiment #2 Dependent variables –SRT in quiet and in noise with HINT sentences (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) –Percent Correct of Keywords for CST Passages (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) at a 0 dB SNR 5 listeners w/ SNHL ( years old) Use of speech-shaped cafeteria noise (Ricketts & Dhar, 1999) as jammer Novel spacing and levels of jammers

CONCLUSIONS FMV algorithm provides benefit across: Competing signal types –Speech shaped cafeteria noise and reversed speech ESSENTIALLY EQUAL BENEFIT IN EACH Response Tasks –Intelligibility ratings - 50% higher for FMV than DM –Speech recognition - 36% improvement in WRS –Fixed and variable SRT measures 6 TO 8 dB OF SRT IMPROVEMENT OVER DIRECTIONAL MICS ALONE FOR NORMAL HEARING LISTENERS 8 TO 13 dB OF SRT IMPROVEMENT FOR LISTENERS WITH SNHL OVER DIRECTIONAL MICS ALONE DEPENDING UPON LOCATION OF JAMMERS

CONCLUSIONS (cont.) Auditory Scenes –Setup #1 - jammers equal at +20º and +40º (Thanksgiving table scene) VARIABLE SRT IMPROVEMENT OVER DIRECTIONAL MICS FOR LISTENERS WITH SNHL WAS 8 TO 11 dB –Setup #2 - Closest jammer at +20º was more intense than other three jammers at -80º, -40º, and +60º (4th of July picnic scene) MEAN VARIABLE SRT IMPROVEMENT OVER DIRECTIONAL MICS FOR LISTENERS WITH SNHL WAS 13 dB (range of 8 to 19 dB across listeners)

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Direct comparison of FMV with commercially available hearing aids with technology for listening in noise Continued assessment of performance in different noise source configurations and reverberation times Comparison of speech intelligibility performance with subjective measures of quality Comparison of human performance with engineering metrics

Key References Cox, R.M. & McDaniel, D.M. (1989). Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) Test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 32(2), Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C., & Gilmore, C. (1987). Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear and Hearing, 8, 119S-126S. Elledge, M.E,Lockwood, M.E., Bilger, R.C., Goueygou, M., Jones, D.L., Lansing, C. R., Liu, C., O'Brien, W. D., Wheeler, B. C., & Feng, A. (1999).A real- time dual-microphone signal-processing system for hearing aids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,106(4), p Lockwood, M.E., Jones, D.L., Elledge, M.E., Bilger, R.C., Goueygou, M., Lansing, C. R., Liu, C., O'Brien, W. D., Wheeler, B. C., & Feng, A. (1999). A minimum-variance frequency-domain algorithm for binaural hearing aid processing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,106(4), p Nilsson, M.J., Soli, S.D., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Development of a hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, Ricketts, T., & Dahr, S. (1999). Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10(4),