1 / 20

Reduced-bandwidth and distributed MWF-based noise reduction algorithms

Reduced-bandwidth and distributed MWF-based noise reduction algorithms. Simon Doclo, Tim Van den Bogaert, Jan Wouters, Marc Moonen Dept. of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-SCD), KU Leuven, Belgium Laboratory for Exp. ORL, KU Leuven, Belgium WASPAA-2007, Oct 23 2007. Outline.

allegra-parrish
Download Presentation

Reduced-bandwidth and distributed MWF-based noise reduction algorithms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reduced-bandwidth and distributed MWF-based noise reduction algorithms Simon Doclo, Tim Van den Bogaert, Jan Wouters, Marc Moonen Dept. of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-SCD), KU Leuven, Belgium Laboratory for Exp. ORL, KU Leuven, Belgium WASPAA-2007, Oct 23 2007

  2. Outline • Hearing aids: bilateral vs. binaural processing • Binaural multi-channel Wiener filter: transmit all microphone signals  large bandwidth of wireless link • Reduce bandwidth: transmit only one contralateral signal • signal-independent: contralateral microphone, fixed beamformer • signal-dependent: MWF on contralateral microphones • iterative distributed MWF procedure: • rank-1 speech correlation matrix  converges to B-MWF solution ! • can still be used in practice when assumption is not satisfied • Performance comparison: • SNR improvement (+ spatial directivity pattern) • dB-MWF performance approaches quite well binaural MWF performance for all conditions

  3. ILD IPD/ITD Hearing aids: bilateral vs. binaural • Many hearing impaired are fitted with hearing aid at both ears: • Signal processing to reduce background noise and improve speech intelligibility • Signal processing to preserve directional hearing (ILD/ITD cues) • Multiple microphone available: spectral + spatial processing • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

  4. Bilateral system Binaural system - Larger SNR improvement (more microphones) - Preservation of binaural cues possible Independent left/right processing: binaural cues for localisation are distorted Need for binaural link Hearing aids: bilateral vs. binaural • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

  5. Hearing aids: bilateral vs. binaural • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions • Binaural multi-microphone noise reduction techniques: • Fixed beamforming • Low complexity, but limited performance • Adaptive beamforming • Mostly based on GSC structure + e.g. passing low-pass portion unaltered to preserve ITD cues • Computationalauditorysceneanalysis • Computation of (real-valued) binaural mask based on binaural and temporal/spectral cues • Multi-channel Wiener filtering • MMSE-based estimate of speech component in both hearing aids • Extensions for preserving binaural cues of speech and noise components [Desloge 1997, Merks 1997, Lotter 2006] [Welker 1997, Nishimura 2002, Lockwood 2004] [Kollmeier1993,Wittkop2003, Hamacher2002,Haykin2004] [Doclo, Klasen, Van den Bogaert, Wouters, Moonen 2005-2007]

  6. Configuration and notation • M microphones on each hearing aid: Y0 , Y1 • Speech and noise components: • Single speech source: (acoustic transfer functions) • Collaboration: 2Nsignals transmitted between hearing aids • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

  7. speech componentin front microphone speech distortion noise reduction • Binaural MWF cost function: Estimated during speech-and-noise and noise-only periods: VAD Binaural MWF (B-MWF) • SDW-MWF using all 2M microphones from both hearing aids: • All microphone signals are transmitted: • MMSE estimate of speech component in (front) microphone ofleft and right hearing aid + trade-off () • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

  8. Binaural MWF (B-MWF) • Optimal filters (general case): • Optimal filters (single speech source): • is complex conjugate of speech ITF • Optimal filters at left and right hearing aid are parallel • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

  9. Reduced-bandwidth algorithms • To limit power/bandwidth requirements, transmitN=1signal from contralateral hearing aid • B-MWF can still be obtained, namely if F01 is parallel to and F10 is parallel to  infeasible at first sight since full correlation matrices can not be computed ! • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  10. Fixed beamformer • Filters F01 and F10 , which can be viewed as monaural beamformers, are signal-independent • MWF-front: front contralateral microphone signals • MWF-superd: monaural superdirective beamformer limited performance • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  11. Contralateral MWF • Transmitted signals = output of monaural MWF, estimating the contralateral speech component only using the contralateral microphone signals • Signal-dependent (better performance than signal-independent) • Increased computational complexity (two MWF solutions for each hearing aid) • In general suboptimal solution: • Optimal solution is obtained in case of single speech source and when noise components between left and right hearing aid are uncorrelated (unrealistic) • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  12. Distributed MWF (dB-MWF) • Iterative procedure: • In each iteration F10 is equal to W00 from previous iteration, and F01 is equal to W11 from previous iteration • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  13. Distributed MWF (dB-MWF) • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  14. Distributed MWF (dB-MWF) • Single speech source: convergence to B-MWF solution (!) • MWF cost function decreases in each step of iteration • Convergence to B-MWF solution, since it minimises J(W) AND satisfies with • General case where Rx is not a rank-1 matrix: • MWF cost function does not necessarily decrease in each iteration • usually no convergence to optimal B-MWF solution • Although , dB-MWF procedure can be used in practice and approaches B-MWF performance • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction -fixed beamformer -contralateral MWF -distributed scheme • Experimental results • Conclusions

  15. HRTFs: T60 500 ms (and T60 140 ms), fs = 20.48kHz • Configurations: • speech source at 0 and several noise configurations (single, two and four noise sources) • speech source at 90 and noise source at 180 • speech material = HINT, noise material = Auditec babble noise • Input SNR defined on LF microphone = 0dB (broadband) • Intelligibility-weighted SNR improvement between output signal and front microphone (L+R) • MWF processing: • Frequency-domain batch procedure • L = 128, =5 • Perfect VAD, • dB-MWF procedure: K=10, Experimental results • Setup: • Binaural system with 2 omni microphones on each hearing aid, mounted on CORTEX MK2 artifical head in reverberant room • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results -SNR improvement -directivity pattern • Conclusions

  16. Original signal SNR improvement (500 ms - left HA)

  17. Experimental results • B-MWF: • In general largest SNR improvement of all algorithms • Up to 4 dB better than MWF-front (3 vs. 4 microphones) • MWF-superd: • Performance between MWF-front and B-MWF, but in general worse than (signal-dependent) MWF-contra and dB-MWF • relatively better performance when (signal-independent) directivity pattern of superdirective beamformer approaches optimal (signal-dependent) directivity pattern of B-MWF, e.g. v=300 (left HA) • MWF-contra: • Performance between MWF-front and B-MWF • dB-MWF: • Best performance of all reduced-bandwidth algorithms • Substantial performance benefit compared to MWF-contra, especially for multiple noise sources • Performance of dB-MWF approaches quite well performance of B-MWF, even though speech correlation matrices are not rank-1 due to FFT overlap and estimation errors, i.e. • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results -SNR improvement -directivity pattern • Conclusions

  18. Experimental results • Directivity pattern: • Fullband spatial directivity pattern of F01, i.e. the pattern generated using the right microphone signals and transmitted to the left hearing aid • Configuration v=[-120 120], T60 = 140 ms • B-MWF: null steered towards direction of noise sources  optimally signal with high SNR should be transmitted • MWF-front, MWF-superd: directivity pattern not similar toB-MWF directivity pattern  low SNR improvement • MWF-contra: directivity pattern similar to B-MWF directivity pattern  high SNR improvement • dB-MWF: best performance since directivity pattern closely matches B-MWF directivity pattern • Using these spatial directivity patterns, it is possible to explain the performance of the different algorithms for different noise configurations to some extent • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results -SNR improvement -directivity pattern • Conclusions

  19. Contralateral directivity patterns (140 ms) B-MWF MWF-front MWF-superd MWF-contra dB-MWF v=[-120 120]

  20. Conclusions • Binaural MWF: large bandwidth/power requirement • Reduced-bandwidth algorithms: • MWF-front, MWF-superd: signal-independent • MWF-contra: monaural MWF using contralateral microphones • Signal-dependent, but suboptimal • dB-MWF: iterative procedure • Converges to B-MWF solution for rank-1 speech correlation matrix • Also useful in practice when this assumption is not satisfied • Experimental results: • dB-MWF > MWF-contra > MWF-superd > MWF-front • Signal-dependent better than signal-independent • 2 or 3 iterations sufficient for dB-MWF procedure • dB-MWF performance approaches quite well B-MWF performance • Extension: distributed processing in acoustic sensor networks • Bilateral/binaural • Binaural MWF • Bandwidth reduction • Experimental results • Conclusions

More Related