Banu GÜNEL, Umut ARİÖZ

Evaluation of hearing loss simulation using a speech intelligibility index

Hearing loss simulation (HLS) is a useful tool for hearing studies, since finding large numbers of hearingimpaired volunteers with various levels of hearing loss is usually a problem. Correct simulation of the hearing impaired ear should take into account different suprathreshold effects, such as reduced frequency selectivity, reduced audibility, and loudness recruitment. Although these effects can be implemented using various algorithms, so far they have not been evaluated in detail taking into account subject dependency, effect of noisy environment, and phonetic characteristics of test words. In this study, for the purpose of evaluating the HLS, a speech intelligibility index (SII) was used as the objective measure and a modified rhyme test (MRT) was used as the subjective measure. Hearing loss of 12 subjects was simulated using various stimuli and 36 subjects with normal hearing were used as a control group. The factors that affect the performance of HLS algorithms were initially determined using the SII metric. Three other factors (sex of speaker, background noise level, and characteristics of the words) were tested both by the SII metric and the MRT. The lists contained word groups designed according to Turkish phonetic characteristics. In addition, the results of the MRT were compared with the results of the SII for both original and simulated sounds. According to the mean values and correlation analysis, both measures gave similar and reliable results for the HLS (58.40 and 57.37 for MRT mean values of unprocessed and simulated sounds, respectively; 0.23 for MRT mean values of unprocessed and processed sounds; 58% and 74% correlation coefficients for MRT and SII, respectively). When statistical significances of the measures were taken into account, the MRT gave more reliable results than the SII. While sounds were simulated in a satisfactory manner in both the noise-free environment and noisy environment for the MRT, similar results for the SII were obtained only in the noise-free environment. Because of high sensitivity of the SII to noise, the results were not satisfactory for the noisy cases. After the simulation, sex of the speaker and test list factors were found to be significant with the noise factor for the MRT.

PDF

___

[1] Villchur E. Simulation of the effect of recruitment on loudness relationships in speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56: 1601-1611.
[2] Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, Delhorne LA. Temporal modulation transfer functions for listeners with real and simulated hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129: 3884-3996.
[3] Milner P, Braida LD, Durlach NI, Levitt H. Perception of filtered speech by hearing-impaired listeners. In: Elkins E, editor. Speech Recognition by the Hearing Impaired. Rockville, MD, USA: American Speech Language Hearing Association, 1984. pp. 30-41.
[4] Zurek PM, Delhorne LA. Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 1548-1559.
[5] Florentine M, Reed CM, Rabinowitz WM, Braida LD, Durlach NI. Intensity perception. XIV. Intensity discrimination in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 2575-2586.
[6] Villchur E. Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. J Acoust Soc Am 1973; 53: 1646-1657.
[7] Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 2050-2062.
[8] Duchnowski P, Zurek PM. Villchur revisited: another look at AGC simulation of recruiting hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 98: 3170-3181.
[9] Baer T, Moore BCJ. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 1229-1241.
[10] Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Vickers DA. Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment on the intelligibility of speech in noise. Brit J Audiol 1995; 29: 131-143.
[11] Nejime Y, Moore BCJ. Simulation of the effect of threshold elevation and loudness recruitment combined with reduced frequency selectivity on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 603-615.
[12] Moore BCJ. Speech processing for the hearing-impaired: successes, failures, and implications for speech mechanisms. Speech Commun 2003; 41: 81-91.
[13] Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79: 1020-1033.
[14] Villchur E. Electronic models to simulate the effect of sensory distortions on speech perception by the deaf. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 62: 665-674.
[15] Summers IR, Al-Dabbagh AD. Simulated loss of frequency selectivity and its effects on speech perception. Acoust Lett 1982; 5: 129-132.
[16] Summers IR. Electronically simulated hearing loss and the perception of degraded speech. In: Wise DL, editor. Bioinstrumentation and Biosensors. New York, NY, USA: CRC Press, 1991. pp. 589-610.
[17] Celmer RD, Bienvenue GR. Critical bands in the perception of speech signals by normal and sensorineural hearing loss listeners. In: Schouten MEH, editor. The Psychophysics Speech Perception. Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Nijhoff, 1987. pp. 473-480.
[18] Howard-Jones PA, Summers IR. Temporal features in spectrally degraded speech. Acoust Lett 1992; 15: 159-163.
[19] ter Keurs M, Festen JM, Plomp R. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 2872-2880.
[20] Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Simpson A. Evaluation of a method of simulating reduced frequency selectivity. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 3402-3423.
[21] Dubno JR, Schaefer AB. Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 2110-2121.
[22] Phillips DP. Stimulus intensity and loudness recruitment: neural correlates. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 1-12.
[23] Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Audit Neurosci 1997; 3: 289-311.
[24] Fairbanks G. Test of phonemic difference: the rhyme test. J Acoust Soc Am 1958; 30: 596-600.
[25] House AS, Williams CE, Hecker MHL, Kryter KD. Articulation testing methods: consonantal differentiation with a closed response set. J Acoust Soc Am 1965; 37: 158-166.
[26] Li Z, Tan EC, McLoughlin I, Teo TT. Proposal of standards for intelligibility tests of Chinese speech. IEE P-Vis Image Sign 2000; 147: 254-260.
[27] Tihelka D, Matouˇsek J. The design of Czech language formal listening tests for the evaluation of TTS systems. In: Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2628 May 2004; Lisbon, Portugal. pp. 1099-2002.
[28] Voiers WD. Diagnostic evaluation of speech intelligibility. In: Hawley ME, editor. Speech Intelligibility and Speaker Recognition. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1977.
[29] ITU. ITU-T Recommendation P.85. Telephone Transmission Quality Subjective Opinion Tests. A Method for Subjective Performance Assessment of the Quality of Speech Voice Output Devices. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU, 1994.
[30] Salza PL, Foti E, Nebbia L, Oreglia M. MOS and pair comparison combined methods for quality evaluation of text to speech systems. Acta Acust 1996; 82: 650-656.
[31] American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5. American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. New York, NY, USA: American National Standards Institute, 1969.
[32] Steeneken H, Houtgast T. A physical method for measuring speech transmission quality. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67: 318-326.
[33] American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5. American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York, NY, USA: American National Standards Institute, 1997.
[34] Sak H, Gungor T, Safkan Y. A corpus-based concatenative speech synthesis system for Turkish. Turk J Electr Eng Co 2006; 14: 209-223.
[35] Palaz H, Bicil Y, Kanak A, Dogan MU. New Turkish intelligibility test for assessing speech communication systems. Speech Commun 2005; 47: 411-423.
[36] American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.2. Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems. New York, NY, USA, American National Standards Institute, 1989.
[37] Arı¨oz U, G¨unel B. Modified rhyme test for evaluating Turkish speech intelligibility. Gazi Medical Journal 2015; 26: 75-81.
[38] Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R. The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72: 1788-1803.