Subjective assessment improves intelligibility and reduces listening effort in hearing-impaired listeners, highlighting the benefits of speaker extraction algorithms.
Speaker-conditioned target speaker extraction algorithms aim at extracting the target speaker from a mixture of multiple speakers by using additional information about the target speaker. Previous studies have evaluated the performance of these algorithms using either instrumental measures or subjective assessments with normal-hearing listeners or with hearing-impaired listeners. Notably, a previous study employing a quasicausal algorithm reported significant intelligibility improvements for both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, while another study demonstrated that a fully causal algorithm could enhance speech intelligibility and reduce listening effort for normal-hearing listeners. Building on these findings, this study focuses on an in-depth subjective assessment of two fully causal deep neural network-based speaker-conditioned target speaker extraction algorithms with hearing-impaired listeners, both without hearing loss compensation (unaided) and with linear hearing loss compensation (aided). Three different subjective performance measurement methods were used to cover a broad range of listening conditions, namely paired comparison, speech recognition thresholds, and categorically scaled perceived listening effort. The subjective evaluation results with 15 hearing-impaired listeners showed that one algorithm significantly reduced listening effort and improved intelligibility compared to unprocessed stimuli and the other algorithm. The data also suggest that hearing-impaired listeners experience a greater benefit in terms of listening effort (for both male and female interfering speakers) and speech recognition thresholds, especially in the presence of female interfering speakers than normal-hearing listeners, and that hearing loss compensation (linear amplification) is not required to obtain an algorithm benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sinha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: