| Summary: | Single-microphone noise reduction leads to subjective benefit, but not to objective improvements in speech intelligibility. We investigated whether response times (RTs) provide an objective measure of the benefit of noise reduction and whether the effect of noise reduction is reflected in rated listening effort. Twelve normal-hearing participants listened to digit triplets that were either unprocessed or processed with one of two noise-reduction algorithms: an ideal binary mask (IBM) and a more realistic minimum mean square error estimator (MMSE). For each of these three processing conditions, we measured (a) speech intelligibility, (b) RTs on two different tasks (identification of the last digit and arithmetic summation of the first and last digit), and (c) subjective listening effort ratings. All measurements were performed at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs): −5, 0, +5, and +∞ dB. Speech intelligibility was high (>97% correct) for all conditions. A significant decrease in response time, relative to the unprocessed condition, was found for both IBM and MMSE for the arithmetic but not the identification task. Listening effort ratings were significantly lower for IBM than for MMSE and unprocessed speech in noise. We conclude that RT for an arithmetic task can provide an objective measure of the benefit of noise reduction. For young normal-hearing listeners, both ideal and realistic noise reduction can reduce RTs at SNRs where speech intelligibility is close to 100%. Ideal noise reduction can also reduce perceived listening effort.
|
|---|