Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Related Articles

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Int J Audiol. 2017 Jan 23;:1-7

Authors: Huber R, Bisitz T, Gerkmann T, Kiessling J, Meister H, Kollmeier B

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The perceived qualities of nine different single-microphone noise reduction (SMNR) algorithms were to be evaluated and compared in subjective listening tests with normal hearing and hearing impaired (HI) listeners.
DESIGN: Speech samples added with traffic noise or with party noise were processed by the SMNR algorithms. Subjects rated the amount of speech distortions, intrusiveness of background noise, listening effort and overall quality, using a simplified MUSHRA (ITU-R, 2003 ) assessment method.
STUDY SAMPLE: 18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study.
RESULTS: Significant differences between the rating behaviours of the two subject groups were observed: While normal hearing subjects clearly differentiated between different SMNR algorithms, HI subjects rated all processed signals very similarly. Moreover, HI subjects rated speech distortions of the unprocessed, noisier signals as being more severe than the distortions of the processed signals, in contrast to normal hearing subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems harder for HI listeners to distinguish between additive noise and speech distortions or/and they might have a different understanding of the term "speech distortion" than normal hearing listeners have. The findings confirm that the evaluation of SMNR schemes for hearing aids should always involve HI listeners.

PMID: 28112001 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2j0r98t
via IFTTT

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Related Articles

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Int J Audiol. 2017 Jan 23;:1-7

Authors: Huber R, Bisitz T, Gerkmann T, Kiessling J, Meister H, Kollmeier B

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The perceived qualities of nine different single-microphone noise reduction (SMNR) algorithms were to be evaluated and compared in subjective listening tests with normal hearing and hearing impaired (HI) listeners.
DESIGN: Speech samples added with traffic noise or with party noise were processed by the SMNR algorithms. Subjects rated the amount of speech distortions, intrusiveness of background noise, listening effort and overall quality, using a simplified MUSHRA (ITU-R, 2003 ) assessment method.
STUDY SAMPLE: 18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study.
RESULTS: Significant differences between the rating behaviours of the two subject groups were observed: While normal hearing subjects clearly differentiated between different SMNR algorithms, HI subjects rated all processed signals very similarly. Moreover, HI subjects rated speech distortions of the unprocessed, noisier signals as being more severe than the distortions of the processed signals, in contrast to normal hearing subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems harder for HI listeners to distinguish between additive noise and speech distortions or/and they might have a different understanding of the term "speech distortion" than normal hearing listeners have. The findings confirm that the evaluation of SMNR schemes for hearing aids should always involve HI listeners.

PMID: 28112001 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2j0r98t
via IFTTT

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Related Articles

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Int J Audiol. 2017 Jan 23;:1-7

Authors: Huber R, Bisitz T, Gerkmann T, Kiessling J, Meister H, Kollmeier B

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The perceived qualities of nine different single-microphone noise reduction (SMNR) algorithms were to be evaluated and compared in subjective listening tests with normal hearing and hearing impaired (HI) listeners.
DESIGN: Speech samples added with traffic noise or with party noise were processed by the SMNR algorithms. Subjects rated the amount of speech distortions, intrusiveness of background noise, listening effort and overall quality, using a simplified MUSHRA (ITU-R, 2003 ) assessment method.
STUDY SAMPLE: 18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study.
RESULTS: Significant differences between the rating behaviours of the two subject groups were observed: While normal hearing subjects clearly differentiated between different SMNR algorithms, HI subjects rated all processed signals very similarly. Moreover, HI subjects rated speech distortions of the unprocessed, noisier signals as being more severe than the distortions of the processed signals, in contrast to normal hearing subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems harder for HI listeners to distinguish between additive noise and speech distortions or/and they might have a different understanding of the term "speech distortion" than normal hearing listeners have. The findings confirm that the evaluation of SMNR schemes for hearing aids should always involve HI listeners.

PMID: 28112001 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2j0r98t
via IFTTT

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Related Articles

Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?

Int J Audiol. 2017 Jan 23;:1-7

Authors: Huber R, Bisitz T, Gerkmann T, Kiessling J, Meister H, Kollmeier B

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The perceived qualities of nine different single-microphone noise reduction (SMNR) algorithms were to be evaluated and compared in subjective listening tests with normal hearing and hearing impaired (HI) listeners.
DESIGN: Speech samples added with traffic noise or with party noise were processed by the SMNR algorithms. Subjects rated the amount of speech distortions, intrusiveness of background noise, listening effort and overall quality, using a simplified MUSHRA (ITU-R, 2003 ) assessment method.
STUDY SAMPLE: 18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study.
RESULTS: Significant differences between the rating behaviours of the two subject groups were observed: While normal hearing subjects clearly differentiated between different SMNR algorithms, HI subjects rated all processed signals very similarly. Moreover, HI subjects rated speech distortions of the unprocessed, noisier signals as being more severe than the distortions of the processed signals, in contrast to normal hearing subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: It seems harder for HI listeners to distinguish between additive noise and speech distortions or/and they might have a different understanding of the term "speech distortion" than normal hearing listeners have. The findings confirm that the evaluation of SMNR schemes for hearing aids should always involve HI listeners.

PMID: 28112001 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2j0r98t
via IFTTT

Validity of the modified Berg Balance Scale in adults with intellectual and visual disabilities.

Validity of the modified Berg Balance Scale in adults with intellectual and visual disabilities.

Res Dev Disabil. 2017 Jan 20;62:58-68

Authors: Dijkhuizen A, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, Waninge A

Abstract
BACKGROUND: A modified version of the Berg Balance Scale (mBBS) was developed for individuals with intellectual and visual disabilities (IVD). However, the concurrent and predictive validity has not yet been determined.
AIM: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the concurrent and predictive validity of the mBBS for individuals with IVD.
METHOD: Fifty-four individuals with IVD and Gross Motor Functioning Classification System (GMFCS) Levels I and II participated in this study. The mBBS, the Centre of Gravity (COG), the Comfortable Walking Speed (CWS), and the Barthel Index (BI) were assessed during one session in order to determine the concurrent validity. The percentage of explained variance was determined by analyzing the squared multiple correlation between the mBBS and the BI, COG, CWS, GMFCS, and age, gender, level of intellectual disability, presence of epilepsy, level of visual impairment, and presence of hearing impairment. Furthermore, an overview of the degree of dependence between the mBBS, BI, CWS, and COG was obtained by graphic modelling. Predictive validity of mBBS was determined with respect to the number of falling incidents during 26 weeks and evaluated with Zero-inflated regression models using the explanatory variables of mBBS, BI, COG, CWS, and GMFCS.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that two significant explanatory variables, the GMFCS Level and the BI, and one non-significant variable, the CWS, explained approximately 60% of the mBBS variance. Graphical modelling revealed that BI was the most important explanatory variable for mBBS moreso than COG and CWS. Zero-inflated regression on the frequency of falling incidents demonstrated that the mBBS was not predictive, however, COG and CWS were.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the concurrent validity as well as the predictive validity of mBBS were low for persons with IVD.

PMID: 28113094 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jMSmbZ
via IFTTT

Assessment of oxidative stress markers and hearing thresholds in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnoea treated with cysteine and superoxide dismutase therapy.

Assessment of oxidative stress markers and hearing thresholds in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnoea treated with cysteine and superoxide dismutase therapy.

Acta Biomed. 2017 Jan 16;87(3):253-258

Authors: Serra A, Maiolino L, Cocuzza S, Di Luca M, Campione G, Licciardello L, Di Mauro P

Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: In OSAHS, the hypoxia and reoxygenation cicles, maintain a state of oxidative stress, which seems to cause a change in the oxidative balance. Our aim is to compare the markers of oxidative stress with audiological findings and OSAHS severity, in OSAHS patients untreated and also treated ones, with cysteine and superoxide dismutase.
METHODS: 65 patients (42 Men, 23 Women) with 30-65 years age range have been enrolled, with a mean age of 52.6 ± 13.3 years with moderate OSAHS. We have analyzed plasma and lymphocyte markers of oxidative stress (glutathione, thioredoxin and heat shock protein) and they were underwent tonal audiometry. Patients were divided in two groups: Group A (32 patients) included patients treated for 8 weeks with cysteine and superoxide dismutase; Group B (33 patients) included patients untreated.
RESULTS: The research showed a significant increase in reduced glutathione levels (p<0.05) in OSAHS patients treated; conversely, it showed a decrease of oxidized glutathione level (p<0.05) in treated patients than OSAHS untreated ones. The thioredoxin values, in untreated OSAHS patients, appear to be reduced than in OSAHS patients treated (p<0.05), and that the heat shock protein values were more elevated in untreated OSAHS patients (p<0.05). Finally, it was found that a correlation exists between the severity of OSAHS and auditory dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: The study of the oxidative stress markers has produced results which lead to support the idea that, in a personalized therapy context, the use of antioxidant therapy can cooperate effectively the first choice treatment.

PMID: 28112690 [PubMed - in process]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jsoocg
via IFTTT

Validity of the modified Berg Balance Scale in adults with intellectual and visual disabilities.

Validity of the modified Berg Balance Scale in adults with intellectual and visual disabilities.

Res Dev Disabil. 2017 Jan 20;62:58-68

Authors: Dijkhuizen A, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, Waninge A

Abstract
BACKGROUND: A modified version of the Berg Balance Scale (mBBS) was developed for individuals with intellectual and visual disabilities (IVD). However, the concurrent and predictive validity has not yet been determined.
AIM: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the concurrent and predictive validity of the mBBS for individuals with IVD.
METHOD: Fifty-four individuals with IVD and Gross Motor Functioning Classification System (GMFCS) Levels I and II participated in this study. The mBBS, the Centre of Gravity (COG), the Comfortable Walking Speed (CWS), and the Barthel Index (BI) were assessed during one session in order to determine the concurrent validity. The percentage of explained variance was determined by analyzing the squared multiple correlation between the mBBS and the BI, COG, CWS, GMFCS, and age, gender, level of intellectual disability, presence of epilepsy, level of visual impairment, and presence of hearing impairment. Furthermore, an overview of the degree of dependence between the mBBS, BI, CWS, and COG was obtained by graphic modelling. Predictive validity of mBBS was determined with respect to the number of falling incidents during 26 weeks and evaluated with Zero-inflated regression models using the explanatory variables of mBBS, BI, COG, CWS, and GMFCS.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that two significant explanatory variables, the GMFCS Level and the BI, and one non-significant variable, the CWS, explained approximately 60% of the mBBS variance. Graphical modelling revealed that BI was the most important explanatory variable for mBBS moreso than COG and CWS. Zero-inflated regression on the frequency of falling incidents demonstrated that the mBBS was not predictive, however, COG and CWS were.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the concurrent validity as well as the predictive validity of mBBS were low for persons with IVD.

PMID: 28113094 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jMSmbZ
via IFTTT