Using response times to speech-in-noise to measure the influence of noise reduction on listening effort
Keywords:Hearing aids, Single microphone noise reduction
Single microphone noise reduction (NR) can lead to a subjective benefit even when there is no objective improvement in speech intelligibility. A possible explanation lies in a reduction of listening effort. In a previous study, we showed that response times (a proxy for listening effort) to a simple arithmetic task with spoken digits in noise were reduced (i.e., improved) by NR for normal-hearing (NH) listeners. In the current study we complemented the data set with data from twelve hearing-impaired (HI) listeners, the target group for NR. Subjects were asked to add the first and third digit of a digit triplet in noise. Response times to this task were measured, subjective listening effort was rated, and speech intelligibility of the stimuli was tested. Stimuli were presented at three signal-to-noise ratios (SNR; -5, 0, +5 dB) and in quiet. Stimuli were either processed with ideal or non-ideal NR, or unprocessed. In contrast to the previous results with NH listeners, a significant effect of NR on response times was for HI listeners restricted to conditions where speech intelligibility was also affected (-5 dB SNR). We cannot confirm a positive effect on response times to speech-in-noise after applying NR for HI listeners.
Baer, T., Moore, B. C., and Gatehouse, S. (1993). “Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: Effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 30, 49-49.
Brons, I., Houben, R., and Dreschler, W. A. (2014). “Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners,” Trends Hear., 18, 1-10.
Byrne, D., Dillon, H., Ching, T., Katsch, R., and Keidser, G. (2001). “NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 12(1).
Desjardins, J. L., and Doherty, K. A. (2014). “The effect of hearing aid noise reduction on listening effort in hearing-impaired adults,” Ear Hearing, 35(6), 600-610.
Gatehouse, S., and Gordon, J. (1990). “Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification,” Br. J. Audiol., 24(1), 63-68.
Hicks, C. B., and Tharpe, A. M. (2002). “Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss,” J. Speech Lang. Hear R., 45(3), 573-584.
Houben, R., van Doorn-Bierman, M., and Dreschler, W. A. (2013). “Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort,” Int. J. Audiol., 52(11), 753-761.
Melzer, I., and Oddsson, L. I. (2004). “The effect of a cognitive task on voluntary step execution in healthy elderly and young individuals,” J. Am. Geriatr. Soc., 52(8), 1255-1262.
Sarampalis, A., Kalluri, S., Edwards, B., and Hafter, E. (2009). “Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction,” J. Speech Lang. Hear R., 52(5), 1230-1240.
van den Tillaart-Haverkate, M., de Ronde-Brons, I., Dreschler, W. A., and Houben, R. (2017). “The influence of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, response times to speech, and perceived listening effort in normal-hearing listeners,” Trends Hear., 21, 1-13.
Verhaeghen, P., and Cerella, J. (2002). “Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 26(7), 849-857.
Wang, D. (2005). “On ideal binary mask as the computational goal of auditory scene analysis,” in Speech Separation by Humans and Machines, Springer, Boston MA, pp. 181-197.
Wang, D., Kjems, U., Pedersen, M. S., Boldt, J. B., and Lunner, T. (2009). “Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 125(4), 2336-2347.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.