Compensating Cocktail Party Noise with Binaural Spatial Segregation on a Novel Device Targeting Partial Hearing Loss

  • Luca Giuliani
  • Sara Sansalone
  • Stefania Repetto
  • Federico Traverso
  • Luca BraydaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9759)


The ability of focusing on a single conversation in the middle of a crowded environment is usually referred at as the cocktail party effect. This skill exploits binaural cues and spectral features of a target speaker. Unfortunately, traditional acoustic prostheses tend to modify these cues in ways that the brain cannot recover. Social isolation is an inevitable consequence. In this work we tested the Glassense, an intelligent pair of glasses. Binaural input from microphones arrays is processed to spatially segregate the soundscape surrounding the listener, so that frontal speech sources are preserved, while competing sources from the sides and the back are attenuated, just as an “acoustical lens”. We report an increase in speech intelligibility by about 4 dB, measured as reception threshold, under severe noisy conditions. Our device can be a complementary input to existing acoustic prostheses, aimed at increasing spatial awareness of persons affected by partial hearing loss.


Hearing aid Disability Microphone arrays Beamforming Binaural Real time 



We would like to thank Francesco Diotalevi for his contribution on hardware development, Petra Bianchi for her help in performing the audiometric measures and all our volunteers. This work is partly supported by the Ligurian PAR-FAS grant Glassense (CUP G35C13001360001) and partly by the EU FP7 grant BLINDPAD (grant number 611621).


  1. 1.
    Haykin, S., Chen, Z.: The cocktail party problem. Neural Comput. 17(9), 1875–1902 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brimijoin, W.O., McShefferty, D., Akeroyd, M.A.: Auditory and visual orienting responses in listeners with and without hearing-impairment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(6), 3678–3688 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feuerstein, J.F.: Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear. 13(2), 80–86 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogaert, T., Doclo, S., Wouters, J., Moonen, M.: Speech enhancement with multichannel Wiener filter techniques in multimicrophone binaural hearing aids. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(1), 360–371 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neher, T.: Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users’ preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality. Front. Neurosci. 8, 391 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boone, M.M.: Directivity measurements on a highly directive hearing aid: the hearing glasses (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Hoesel, R.J., Clark, G.M.: Evaluation of a portable two-microphone adaptive beamforming speech processor with cochlear implant patients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97(4), 2498–2503 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Froehlich, P.M., Freels, K., Powers, T.A.: Speech recognition benefit obtained from binaural beamforming hearing aids: comparison to omnidirectional and individuals with normal hearing. Audiol. Online 14338, 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kates, J.M., Weiss, M.R.: A comparison of hearing-aid array-processing techniques. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99(5), 3138–3148 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Widrow, B.: A microphone array for hearing aids. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 1(2), 26–32 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merks, I.L.D.M.: Binaural application of microphone arrays for improved speech intelligibility in a noisy environment, Ph.D. Thesis (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mens, L.H.M.: Speech understanding in noise with an eyeglass hearing aid: asymmetric fitting and the head shadow benefit of anterior microphones. Int. J. Audiol. 50(1), 27–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trucco, A., Traverso, F., Crocco, M.: Maximum constrained directivity of oversteered end-fire sensor arrays. Sensors 15(6), 13477–13502 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 8253–3:2012: Acoustics - Audiometric test methods - Speech audiometry (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bocca, A., Pellegrini, E.: Studio statistico sulla composizione fonetica della lingua italiana e sua applicazione pratica all’audiometria con la parola. Arch. Ital. Otol. Rinol. Laringol. 56(5), 116–141 (1950)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kato, M., Uematsu, H., Kashino, M., Hirahara, T.: The effect of head motion on the accuracy of sound localization. Acoust. Sci. Technol. 24(5), 315–317 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moncur, J.P., Dirks, D.D.: Binaural and monaural speech intelligibility in reverberation. J. Speech Hear. Res. 10(2), 186–95 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Giuliani
    • 1
  • Sara Sansalone
    • 2
  • Stefania Repetto
    • 2
  • Federico Traverso
    • 3
  • Luca Brayda
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Fondazione Istituto Italiano di TecnologiaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Linear s.r.l.GenoaItaly
  3. 3.DITEN - University of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations