MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134118443 · doi:10.1109/10.942587

Perceptual time-frequency subtraction algorithm for noise reduction in hearing aids

2001· article· en· W2134118443 on OpenAlexaff
Min Li, H.G. McAllister, N.D. Black, T.A. de Perez

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing aidSpeech recognitionComputer scienceIntelligibility (philosophy)Noise (video)PsychoacousticsNoise reductionAuditory maskingAuditory systemSpeech perceptionSpeech enhancementSpeech processingMasking (illustration)PerceptionArtificial intelligenceAudiologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensorineural hearing disorders are a major and universal community health problem. In many cases, hearing aids offer the only solution for people suffering from such disorders. Unfortunately existing aids do not provide any improvement in intelligibility of the signal when background noise is present. A hearing aid system should ideally simulate auditory processes including those aspects of the speech signal that are perceptually important. This work presents a new integrated approach to the design of a digital hearing aid, based on a wavelet transform, as well as a formulation of the temporal and spectral psychoacoustic model of masking. Within the model, the Perceptual Time-Frequency Subtraction (PTFS) algorithm is developed to simulate the masking phenomena and reduce noise in single-input systems. Results show that the use of the PTFS yields a significant improvement in speech quality especially in unvoiced portions. Additionally, the noise component during periods of silence has been attenuated by up to 20 dB. This new noise reduction method is expected to be applicable in a variety of applications, including digital hearing aids and portable communication systems (e.g., cellular telephones).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207