Advertisement

Steady State Mean Square Analysis of Convex Combination of ZA-APA and APA for Acoustic Echo Cancellation

  • S. Radhika
  • Sivabalan Arumugam
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 384)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new approach for the cancellation of acoustic echo in a loud speaker enclosed microphone system. The acoustic echo is often sparse in nature and the level of sparseness also changes with time. The input in such applications, is speech which is highly correlated. Thus there is a requirement of an adaptive filter which can work in both sparse and non sparse environment and perform well even for correlated inputs. We present convex combination of conventional affine projection algorithm (APA) with small step size and projection order and zero attraction APA (ZA-APA) for echo cancellation. Steady state excess mean square (EMSE) error analysis revealed that the proposed algorithm converges to conventional APA in non sparse environment and to ZA-APA in case of sparse environment and in semi sparse condition, the steady state EMSE value is at least same as the lesser filter‘s steady state error or even smaller depending on the value of the constant chosen. Simulation is performed in the context of acoustic echo cancellation and the validity of the proposed algorithm is proved from the simulation results.

Keywords

Affine projection algorithm Convex combination Steady state mean square error Zero attraction Convergence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Naffouri, T.Y., Sayed, A.H.: Transient analysis of data-normalized adaptive filters. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 51, 639–652 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arenas-García, J., Figueiras-Vidal, A.R.: Adaptive combination of proportionate filters for sparse echo cancellation. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 17, 1087–1098 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas-García, J., Figueiras-Vidal, A.R., Sayed, A.H.: Mean-square performance of a convex combination of two adaptive filters. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 54, 1078–1090 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benesty, J., Gay, S.L.: An improved PNLMS algorithm. In: 2002 IEEE International conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 2, pp. 1881–1884 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benesty, J., Gänsler, T., Morgan, D.R., Sondhi, M.M., Gay, S.L.: Advances in network and acoustic echo cancellation. Springer, Heildelberg (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breining, C., et al.: Acoustic echo control. An application of very-high-order adaptive filters. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 16, 42–69 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Das, B.K., Chakraborty, M.: Sparse Adaptive Filtering by an Adaptive Convex Combination of the LMS and the ZA-LMS Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems 61, 1499–1507 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dogancay, K., Tanrikulu, O.: Selective-partial-update NLMS and affine projection algorithms for acoustic echo cancellation. In: 2000 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 1, pp. 448–451 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haykin, S.S.: Adaptive filter theory. Pearson Education, India (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, Y., Li, W., Yu, W., Wan, J., Li, Z.: Sparse Adaptive Channel Estimation Based on-Norm-Penalized Affine Projection Algorithm. International Journal of Antennas and Propagation (2014). doi: 10.1155/2014/434659
  11. 11.
    Lima, M.V., Martins, W.A., Diniz, P.S.: Affine projection algorithms for sparse system identification. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 1, pp. 5666–5670 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lima, M.V., Sobron, I., Martins, W.A., Diniz, P.S.: Stability and MSE analyses of affine projection algorithms for sparse system identification. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 1, pp. 6399–6403 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meng, R.: Sparsity-aware Adaptive Filtering Algorithms and Application to System Identification. Dissertation. University of York (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meng, R., de Lamare, R.C., Vitor, H.N.: Sparsity-aware affine projection adaptive algorithms for system identification. In: Sensor Signal Processing for Defence IET, pp. 1–5 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paleologu, C., Ciochina, S., Benesty, J.: An efficient proportionate affine projection algorithm for echo cancellation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 17, 165–168 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Price, R.: A useful theorem for nonlinear devices having Gaussian inputs. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 4, 69–72 (1958)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radhika, S., Sivabalan, A.: A Survey on the Different Adaptive Algorithms used in Adaptive Filters. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 1, 1–5 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shin, H.C., Sayed, A.H.: Mean-square performance of a family of affine projection algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 52, 90–102 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Werner, S., Apolinário Jr, J.A., Diniz, P.S.: Set-membership proportionate affine projection algorithms. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing 1, 10 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, J., Sobelman, G.E.: Efficient μ-law improved proportionate affine projection algorithm for echo cancellation. Electronics letters 47, 73–74 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringSathyabama UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.NEC Mobile Networks Excellence CentreChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations