title: Comparison of single-microphone noise reduction schemes: can hearing impaired listeners tell the difference?
abstract: 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.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  18 normal hearing and 18 moderately HI subjects participated in the study.
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  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.
authors.affiliation: a HörTech gGmbH and Cluster of Excellence Hearing4All , Oldenburg , Germany.
authors.forename: Rainer
authors.identifier: 0000-0001-7241-2037
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Huber
authors.affiliation: a HörTech gGmbH and Cluster of Excellence Hearing4All , Oldenburg , Germany.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Bisitz
authors.affiliation: b Department of Medical Physics and Acoustics , University of Oldenburg, and Cluster of Excellence Hearing4All , Oldenburg , Germany.
authors.forename: Timo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Gerkmann
authors.affiliation: c Funktionsbereich Audiologie , Justus-Liebig University Giessen , Giessen , Germany , and.
authors.forename: Jürgen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kiessling
authors.affiliation: d Jean Uhrmacher Institute for Clinical ENT-Research , University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany.
authors.forename: Hartmut
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Meister
authors.affiliation: b Department of Medical Physics and Acoustics , University of Oldenburg, and Cluster of Excellence Hearing4All , Oldenburg , Germany.
authors.forename: Birger
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kollmeier
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D012048:Correction of Hearing Impairment / Q000295:instrumentation*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006309:Hearing; D006310:Hearing Aids; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000523:psychology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D006320:Hearing Tests; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009622:Noise / Q000009:adverse effects*; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D019986:Persons with Hearing Disabilities / Q000523:psychology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D011571:Psychoacoustics; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D013065:Speech Intelligibility; D013067:Speech Perception
keywords: Hearing aids; hearing aid satisfaction; psychoacoustics/hearing science; speech perception