Objective: The objective of this study was to test the effects of modulation-based digital noise reduction (MB-DNR) on noise levels, speech intelligibility, and listening preference in four real-world noises. Background: A significant challenge in hearing protection device (HPD) design is to reduce ambient noise levels while maintaining users' ability to understand speech. MB-DNR technology, currently employed in hearing aids, potentially could be used to achieve these objectives. Methods: Speech and noise calibrated to signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 0, —5, and —10 dB in the sound field were recorded at the outputs of two digital hearing aids in the ears of a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research with and without MB-DNR activated (i.e., NR and noNR, respectively). Listeners' speech intelligibility scores and sound quality preferences were evaluated while they listened to the recordings presented via ER-3A insert earphones at 85 dB SPL. Results: MB-DNR reduced the overall noise level by approximately 4 to 7 dB. Listeners obtained significantly higher speech intelligibility scores in the NR condition at an SNR of —10 dB in two noises and similar scores in the noNR and NR conditions in all other cases. They preferred the NR condition in all cases. Conclusion: MB-DNR reduced overall noise level, enhanced sound quality, and maintained or improved speech intelligibility in the four military noises tested. Applications: MB-DNR algorithms potentially could be incorporated into HPDs to enhance performance and increase user acceptance.
Abel, S.M., & Odell, P. (2007). Sound attenuation from earmuffs and earplugs in combination: Maximum benefits vs. missed information. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 77, 899-904.
2.
Abel, S.M., & Spencer, D.L. (1997). Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection. Relative benefits of normal hearing and impaired listeners. Scandinavian Audiology, 26, 155-167.
3.
Alcantara, J.L., Moore, D.P., Kuhnel, V., & Launer, S. (2003). Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. International Journal of Audiology , 42, 34-42.
4.
Bentler, R., & Chiou, L.K. (2006). Digital noise reduction: An overview. Trends in Amplification, 10, 67-82.
5.
Berger, E.H. (1992). Using KEMAR to measure hearing protector attenuation: When it works, and when it doesn't. In G. A. Daigle & M. R. Stinson (Eds.), Proceedings of Inter-Noise 92 (pp. 273-278). Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation.
6.
Boymans, M., & Dreschler, W.A. (2000). Field trials using a digital hearing aid with active noise reduction and dual-microphone directionality . Audiology, 39, 260-268.
7.
Boymans, M., Dreschler, W., Shoneveld, P., & Verschuure, H. (1999). Clinical evaluation in a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. Audiology, 38, 99-108.
8.
Burkhard, M.D., & Sachs, R.M. (1975). Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58, 214-222.
9.
Casali, J.G., & Horylev, M.H. (1987). Speech discrimination in noise: The influence of hearing protection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 1246-1250). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
Chung, K. (2004). Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I: Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends in Amplification, 8, 83-124.
11.
Chung, K. (2007). Effective compression and noise reduction configurations for hearing protectors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 1090-1101.
12.
Cornelisse, L.E., Gagne, J.-P., & Seewald, R.C. (1991). Ear level recordings of the long-term average spectrum of speech. Ear and Hearing, 12, 47-54.
13.
Cox, R.M., & Moore, J.N. (1988). Composite speech spectrum for hearing and gain prescriptions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 102-107.
14.
Dillon, H. (1996). Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times?Ear and Hearing, 17, 287-307.
15.
Drullman, R., Festen, M., & Plomp, R. (1994a). Effects of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2670-2680.
16.
Drullman, R., Festen, M., & Plomp, R. (1994b). Effects of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1053-1064.
Fletcher, H. (1940). Auditory patterns. Review of Modern Physics, 12, 47-65.
19.
Franks, J., Stephenson, M. R., & Merry, C. J. (Eds.). (1996). Preventing occupational hearing loss: A practical guide (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication 96-110). Cincinnati, OH : National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health .
20.
Hétu, R., Getty, L., & Quoc, H.T. (1995). Impact of occupational hearing loss in lives of workers. Occupational Medicine, 10, 495-512.
21.
Hong, O., Samo, D., Hulea, R., & Eakin, B. (2008). Perception and attitudes of firefighters on noise exposure and hearing loss. Journal of Occupational Environmental Hygiene, 5, 210-215.
22.
Institute for Perception-TNO. (1990). Index of /spib/data/signals/ noise. Retrieved March 14, 2009 , from http://spib.rice.edu/spib/data/signals/noise/
23.
Lusk, S.D., Ronis, D., & Kerr, M. (1995). Predictors of hearing protection use among workers: Implications for training programs. Human Factors, 37, 635-640.
24.
Morata, T.C., Fiorini, A.C., Fischer, F.M., Krieg, E.F., Gozzoli, L., & Colacioppo, S. (2001). Factors affecting the use of hearing protectors in a population of printing workers. Noise and Health, 4, 25-32.
25.
Morata, T.C., Themann, C.L., Randolph, R.F., Verbsky, B.L., Byrne, D.C., & Reeves, E.R. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about hearing loss prevention among workers with self-reported hearing difficulties. Ear and Hearing, 26, 529-545.
26.
Mueller, H.G. (2002). A candid round-table discussion on modern digital hearing aids and their features. Hearing Journal, 55, 23-35.
27.
Mueller, H.G., Weber, J., & Hornsby, B.W. (2006). The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends in Amplification, 10, 83-93.
28.
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, 1985-1999.
29.
Palmer, C.V., Bentler, R., & Mueller, H.G. (2006). Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends in Amplification, 10, 95-104.
30.
Ricketts, T.A., & Hornsby, B.W. (2005). Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16, 270-277.
31.
Robinson, G.S., & Casali, J.G. (2003). Speech communications and signal detection in noise. In E. H. Berger, L. H. Royster, J. D. Royster , D. P. Driscoll, & M. Layne (Eds.), The noise manual (Rev. 5th ed., pp. 567-600). Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Souza, P.E., & Turner, C.W. (1998). Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 315-326.
34.
Suter, A.H. (2002). Construction noise: Exposure, effects, and the potential for remediation. A review and analysis. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 63, 768-789.
35.
Tufts, J.B., & Frank, T. (2003). Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1069-1080.
36.
Turner, C.W., Souza, P.E., & Forget, L.N. (1995). Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 2568-2576.
37.
Wagstaff, A.S., & Woxen, O.J. (2001). Double hearing protection and speech intelligibility: Room for improvement. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine , 72, 400-404.
38.
Walden, B.E., Surr, R.K., Cord, M.T., Edwards, B., & Olson, L. (2000). Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology , 11, 540-560.
39.
Xu, L., & Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1758-1764.
