Wagener et al., 2018 - Google Patents
Effect of hearing aid directionality and remote microphone on speech intelligibility in complex listening situationsWagener et al., 2018
View PDF- Document ID
- 6757519396921006387
- Author
- Wagener K
- Vormann M
- Latzel M
- Mülder H
- Publication year
- Publication venue
- Trends in hearing
External Links
Snippet
Remote microphones (RMs) have been developed to support hearing aid (HA) users in understanding distant talkers. In traditional clinical applications, a drawback of these systems is the deteriorated speech intelligibility in the near field. This study investigates …
- 230000000694 effects 0 title abstract description 44
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
- H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets providing an auditory perception; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
- H04R25/70—Adaptation of deaf aid to hearing loss, e.g. initial electronic fitting
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
- H04R2225/00—Details of deaf aids covered by H04R25/00, not provided for in any of its subgroups
- H04R2225/43—Signal processing in hearing aids to enhance the speech intelligibility
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04R—LOUDSPEAKERS, MICROPHONES, GRAMOPHONE PICK-UPS OR LIKE ACOUSTIC ELECTROMECHANICAL TRANSDUCERS; DEAF-AID SETS; PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS
- H04R25/00—Deaf-aid sets providing an auditory perception; Electric tinnitus maskers providing an auditory perception
- H04R25/50—Customised settings for obtaining desired overall acoustical characteristics
- H04R25/505—Customised settings for obtaining desired overall acoustical characteristics using digital signal processing
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Edwards | The future of hearing aid technology | |
| Devocht et al. | The benefits of bimodal aiding on extended dimensions of speech perception: Intelligibility, listening effort, and sound quality | |
| Nelson et al. | Self-adjusted amplification parameters produce large between-subject variability and preserve speech intelligibility | |
| Rennies et al. | Energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking in binaural speech intelligibility and perceived listening effort | |
| Picou et al. | The effects of directional processing on objective and subjective listening effort | |
| Marrone et al. | Evaluating the benefit of hearing aids in solving the cocktail party problem | |
| Søgaard Jensen et al. | Perceptual effects of adjusting hearing-aid gain by means of a machine-learning approach based on individual user preference | |
| Boymans et al. | Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments | |
| Williges et al. | Spatial speech-in-noise performance in bimodal and single-sided deaf cochlear implant users | |
| Völker et al. | Comparing binaural pre-processing strategies III: Speech intelligibility of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners | |
| Schädler et al. | Individual aided speech-recognition performance and predictions of benefit for listeners with impaired hearing employing FADE | |
| Palmer et al. | Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds | |
| Luo et al. | Vocal emotion recognition performance predicts the quality of life in adult cochlear implant users | |
| Kidd Jr et al. | Benefits of acoustic beamforming for solving the cocktail party problem | |
| Van Den Tillaart-Haverkate et al. | The influence of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, response times to speech, and perceived listening effort in normal-hearing listeners | |
| Best et al. | Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension | |
| Neher et al. | Investigating differences in preferred noise reduction strength among hearing aid users | |
| McCreery et al. | An evidence-based systematic review of frequency lowering in hearing aids for school-age children with hearing loss | |
| Wagener et al. | Effect of hearing aid directionality and remote microphone on speech intelligibility in complex listening situations | |
| Ricketts et al. | Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments | |
| Williges et al. | Spatial release from masking in simulated cochlear implant users with and without access to low-frequency acoustic hearing | |
| Green et al. | Speech recognition with a hearing-aid processing scheme combining beamforming with mask-informed speech enhancement | |
| Yellamsetty et al. | A comparison of environment classification among premium hearing instruments | |
| Salorio-Corbetto et al. | Evaluation of a frequency-lowering algorithm for adults with high-frequency hearing loss | |
| Best et al. | Evaluation of the NAL dynamic conversations test in older listeners with hearing loss |