The present subject matter relates generally to adaptive filters and in particular to method and apparatus to reduce entrainment-related artifacts for hearing assistance systems.
Digital hearing aids with an adaptive feedback canceller usually suffer from artifacts when the input audio signal to the microphone is periodic. The feedback canceller may use an adaptive technique, such as a N-LMS algorithm, that exploits the correlation between the microphone signal and the delayed receiver signal to update a feedback canceller filter to model the external acoustic feedback. A periodic input signal results in an additional correlation between the receiver and the microphone signals. The adaptive feedback canceller cannot differentiate this undesired correlation from that due to the external acoustic feedback and borrows characteristics of the periodic signal in trying to trace this undesired correlation. This results in artifacts, called entrainment artifacts, due to non-optimal feedback cancellation. The entrainment-causing periodic input signal and the affected feedback canceller filter are called the entraining signal and the entrained filter, respectively.
Entrainment artifacts in audio systems include whistle-like sounds that contain harmonics of the periodic input audio signal and can be very bothersome and occurring with day-to-day sounds such as telephone rings, dial tones, microwave beeps, instrumental music to name a few. These artifacts, in addition to being annoying, can result in reduced output signal quality. Thus, there is a need in the art for method and apparatus to reduce the occurrence of these artifacts and hence provide improved quality and performance.
This application addresses the foregoing needs in the art and other needs not discussed herein. Method and apparatus embodiments are provided for a system to avoid entrainment of feedback cancellation filters in hearing assistance devices. Various embodiments include using a transform domain filter to measure an acoustic feedback path and monitoring the transform domain filter for indications of entrainment. Various embodiments include comparing a measure of eigenvalue spread of transform domain filter to a threshold for indication of entrainment of the transform domain filter. Various embodiments include suspending adaptation of the transform domain filter upon indication of entrainment.
Embodiments are provided that include a microphone, a receiver and a signal processor to process signals received from the microphone, the signal processor including a transform domain adaptive cancellation filter, the transform domain adaptive cancellation filter adapted to provide an estimate of an acoustic feedback path for feedback cancellation. Various embodiments provided include a signal processor programmed to suspend the adaptation of the a transform domain adaptive cancellation filter upon an indication of entrainment of the a transform domain adaptive cancellation filter.
This Summary is an overview of some of the teachings of the present application and is not intended to be an exclusive or exhaustive treatment of the present subject matter. Further details about the present subject matter are found in the detailed description and the appended claims. The scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.
In various embodiments of the present subject matter, eigenvalue spread of an input signal autocorrelation matrix provides indication of the presence of correlated signal components within an input signal. As correlated inputs cause entrainment of adaptive, or self-correcting, feedback cancellation algorithms, entrainment avoidance apparatus and methods discussed herein, use the relationship of various autocorrelation matrix eigenvalues to control the adaptation of self-correcting feedback cancellation algorithms. Various embodiments use transform domain algorithms to separate the input signal into eigen components and then use various adaptation rates for each eigen component to improve convergence of the adaptive algorithm to avoid entrainment.
The convergence speed of an adaptive algorithm varies with the eigenvalue spread of the input autocorrelation matrix. The system input can be separated into individual modes (eigen modes) by observing the convergence of each individual mode of the system. For the system identification configuration, the number of taps represents the number of modes in the system. For gradient decent algorithms, the overall system convergence is a combination of convergence of separate modes of the system. Each individual mode is associated with an exponential decaying Mean Square Error (MSE) convergence curve. For smaller adaptation rate parameters with the steepest decent algorithm, the convergence time constants for the individual modes are approximated with,
where τk,mse is a time constant which corresponds to the kth mode, λk is the kth eigenvalue of the system and μ is the adaptation rate. The above equation shows that the smaller eigen modes take longer to converge for a given step size parameter. Conversely, large adaptation rates put a limit on the stability and minimum convergence error. In various embodiments, better convergence properties are obtained by reducing the eigenvalue spread or changing the adaptation rate based on the magnitude of the eigenvalues. Predetermined convergence is achieved by separating the signal into eigen components. Pre-filtering the input signal with Karhunen Leve Transform (KLT) will separate the signal into eigen components. Selecting an adaptation rate based on the magnitude of each component's eigenvalues allows varying degrees of convergence to be achieved. For a real time system, it is not necessary, or practical, to know the spectra of the input signal in detail to use this data dependent transform.
In practice, the Discrete Cosine Transforms (DCT), Discrete Fourier Transforms (DFT) and Discrete Hartley Transforms (DHT) based adaptive systems [33] are used to de-correlate signals. Transform domain adaptive filters exploit the de-correlation properties of these data independent transforms. Most real life low frequency signals, such as acoustic signals, can be estimated using DCTs and DFTs.
Transform domain LMS algorithms, including DCT-LMS and DFT-LMS algorithms, are suited for block processing. The transforms are applied on a block of data similar to block adaptive filters. Use of blocks reduce the complexity of the system by a factor and improves the convergence of the system. By using block processing, it possible to implement these algorithms with O(m) complexity, which is attractive from a computation complexity perspective. Besides entrainment avoidance, these algorithms improve the convergence for slightly correlated inputs signals due to the variable adaptation rate on the individual modes.
The feedback canceller input signal un is transformed by a pre-selected unitary transformation,
ūi=uiT
where the ui=[ui, ui−1, . . . ui−M+1] and T is the transform.
For a DFT transform case, T matrix becomes,
the scaling factor, √{square root over (M)}, makes the regular DFT the transform unitary, T T*=I.
For a DCT algorithm, the transform is,
For the system identification configuration, the error signal is calculated as the difference between the desired signal and the approximated signal, e(i)=d(i)−uiTW. For the case of the feedback canceller configuration, the error signal is given by,
ei=yi−ŷi+xi.
With the transformation of the input signal to DCT/DFT domain, ūi=uiT changes the input autocorrelation matrix to,
The derivation of the transform domain algorithm starts using the LMS algorithm,
Wi+1=Wi+μui*ei
where ei=yi−WTui+xi for the feedback canceller configuration. Applying the transform T,
TWi+1=TWi+Tμui*ei.
Applying the transformed weight vector
Applying the input vector from above, ūi=uiT,
The unitary transform gives,
uiTWi=uiTTTTWi=ūiT
Power normalization based on the magnitude of the de-correlated components is achieved by normalizing the update of the above equation with D−1,
where D is an energy transform. The power normalization matrix can be united to a single transform matrix by choosing a transform T′=TD−1/2. The weight vector, Wi, and the input signal get transformed to
u′i=uiTD−1/2=uiT′
W′i=TD−1/2Wi=T′Wi
After de-correlating the entries of ūi, the uncorrelated power of each mode can be estimated by,
λi(k)=βλi−1(k)+(1−β)|ûi(k)|2, k=0, 1, . . . , M−1
and the weights are updated using,
It is important to note that unitary transforms do not change the eigenvalue spread of the input signal. A unitary transform is a rotation that brings eigen vectors into alignment with the coordinated axes.
Experimentation shows the DCT-LMS algorithms perform better than the DFT-LMS algorithms. Entrainment avoidance includes monitoring the eigenvalue spread of the system and determining a threshold. When eigenvalue spread exceeds the threshold, adaptation is suspended. The DCT LMS algorithm uses eigenvalues in the normalization of eigen modes and it is possible to use these to implement entraimnent avoidance. A one pole smoothed eigenvalue spread is given by,
ζi(k)=γζi−1(k)+(1−γ)λi(k), k=0, 1, . . . , M−1
where ζi(k) is the smoothed eigenvalue magnitude and γ<1 is a smoothing constant. The entrainment is avoided using the condition number that can be calculated by,
where ψ is a threshold constant selected based on the adaptation rate and the eigenvalue spread for typical entrainment prone signals. In various embodiments, as the ratio exceeds ψ, adaptation is suspended. In various embodiments, as the adaptation rate in creases beyond ψ, the adaptation rate is reduced. Adaptation is resumed when the value of the ratio is less than ψ.
The DCT LMS entrainment avoidance algorithm was compared with the NLMS feedback canceller algorithm to derive a relative complexity. The complexity calculation was done only for the canceller path. For the above reason, we used a M stage discrete cosine transform adaptive algorithm. This algorithm has faster convergence for slightly colored signals compared to the NLMS algorithm. In summery, the DCT-LMS entrainment avoidance algorithm has ˜M2/2+8M complex and ˜M2/2+8M simple operations. The ūi=uiT vector multiplication computation uses ˜3M operations when redundancies are eliminated. The block version of the algorithm has significant complexity reductions.
The results of
This application is intended to cover adaptations and variations of the present subject matter. It is to be understood that the above description is intended to be illustrative, and not restrictive. The scope of the present subject matter should be determined with reference to the appended claim, along with the full scope of equivalents to which the claims are entitled.
This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/862,530, filed Oct. 23, 2006, the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3601549 | Mitchell | Aug 1971 | A |
4495643 | Orban | Jan 1985 | A |
4731850 | Levitt et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4783817 | Hamada et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4879749 | Levitt et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4985925 | Langberg et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5016280 | Engebretson et al. | May 1991 | A |
5027410 | Williamson et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5091952 | Williamson et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5259033 | Goodings et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5276739 | Krokstad et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5402496 | Soli et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5502869 | Smith et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5533120 | Staudacher | Jul 1996 | A |
5619580 | Hansen | Apr 1997 | A |
5621802 | Harjani et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5668747 | Ohashi | Sep 1997 | A |
6072884 | Kates | Jun 2000 | A |
6173063 | Melanson | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6219427 | Kates et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6356606 | Hahm | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6389440 | Lewis et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6434246 | Kates et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434247 | Kates et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6480610 | Fang et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6498858 | Kates | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6552446 | Lomba et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6563931 | Soli et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6754356 | Luo et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6831986 | Kates | Dec 2004 | B2 |
7058182 | Kates | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7065486 | Thyssen | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7519193 | Fretz | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7809150 | Natarajan et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7995780 | Pedersen et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8199948 | Theverapperuma | Jun 2012 | B2 |
20010002930 | Kates | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20030026442 | Fang et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030031314 | Tanrikulu et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030185411 | Atlas et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040086137 | Yu et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040125973 | Fang et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050036632 | Natarajan et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050047620 | Fretz | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20060140429 | Klinkby et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070223755 | Salvetti et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080095389 | Theverapperuma | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080130926 | Theverapperuma | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080130927 | Theverapperuma et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090175474 | Salvetti et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20110091049 | Salvetti et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110116667 | Natarajan et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20120230503 | Theverapperuma | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
19748079 | May 1999 | DE |
0585976 | Mar 1994 | EP |
1367857 | Dec 2003 | EP |
1718110 | Feb 2006 | EP |
2080408 | Aug 2012 | EP |
WO-0106746 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO-0106812 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO-0110170 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO-2004105430 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO-2008051569 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051569 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051570 | May 2008 | WO |
WO-2008051571 | May 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Francoise Beaufays, Transform-Domain Adaptive Filters: An Analytical Approach, Feb. 1995, IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing, vol. 43, No. 2, p. 422-431. |
T. W. Wong and C. P. Kwong, Adaptive Filtering Using Hartley Transform and Overlap-Saved Method, Jul. 1991, IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing, vol. 39, No. 7, p. 1708-1711. |
Haykin S., “Adaptive Filter Theory: 3rd Edition”, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J, 1996, pp. 170-171. |
“Advance Adaptive Feedback Cancellation”, IntriCon: Technology White Paper, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.intricondownloads.com/D1/techdemo/WP—Advanced—AFC—rev101006.pdf>, (Oct. 10, 2005), 3 pg. |
“Entrainment (Physics)”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entrainment—(physics)&printable=yes>, (Jun. 18, 2009), 2 pgs. |
“Inspiria Ultimate—GA3285”, [Online]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: http://www.sounddesigntechnologies.com/products—InspiriaUltimate.php>, (Jun. 18, 2009), 4 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022550, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed May 7, 2009”, 8 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022550, International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Oct. 23, 2006”, 12 pgs. |
Beaufays, Francoise, “Transform-Domain Adaptive Filters: An Analytical Approach”, IEEE Trans. on Signal Proc., vol. 43(2), (Feb. 1995), 422-431. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2011”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 29, 2011”, 13 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07839768.4, Office Action Received Dec. 9, 2011”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Final Office Action mailed Jun. 11, 2009”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Final Office Action Mailed Jul. 24, 2008”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Non-Final Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2010”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 26, 2007”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 31, 2008”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Notice of Allowance mailed Jul. 26, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Apr. 26, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 26, 2010”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Apr. 28, 2008 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 26, 2007”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Apr. 30, 2009 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 31, 2008”, 7 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Nov. 12, 2009 to Final Office Action mailed Jun. 11, 2009”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Nov. 16, 2007 to Restriction Requirement dated May 21, 2007”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Response filed Nov. 24, 2008 to Final Office Action mailed Jul. 24, 2008”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 10/857,599, Restriction Requirement mailed May 21, 2007”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Decision on Pre-Appeal Brief Request mailed Feb. 15, 2011”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2010”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr. 2, 2010”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 25, 2011”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Pre-Appeal Brief Request filed Jan. 14, 2011”, 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Response filed Jan. 11, 2010 to Restriction Requirement mailed Dec. 10, 2009”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Response filed Jun. 15, 2011 to Final Office Action mailed Sep. 14, 2010”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Response filed Jul. 2, 2010 to Non Final Office Action mailed Apr. 2, 2010”, 15 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/276,763, Restriction Requirement mailed Dec. 10, 2009”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 18, 2011”, 16 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,567, Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 1, 2011”, 17 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2011”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Response filed Sep. 12, 2011 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2011”, 7 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07250899.7, European Search Report mailed May 15, 2008”, 7 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07250899.7, Office Action Mailed Jan. 15, 2009”, 1 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07250899.7, Office Action mailed Mar. 21, 2011”, 3 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07250899.7, Response to Official Communication Filed Jul. 13, 2009”, 17 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07839767.6, Office Action mailed May 5, 2011”, 4 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07839767.6, Response filed Jun. 2, 2011 to Office Action mailed May 5, 2011”, 11 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022548, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed May 7, 2009”, 8 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022548, Search Report mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 7 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022548, Written Opinion mailed Jun. 3, 2008”, 8 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022549, International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed May 7, 2009”, 8 pgs. |
“International Application Serial No. PCT/US2007/022549, International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Feb. 15, 2008”, 12 pgs. |
Chankawee, A., et al., “Performance improvement of acoustic feedback cancellation in hearing aids using liner prediction”, Digital Signal Processing Research Laboratory(DSPRL), (Nov. 21, 2004), 116-119. |
Lalin, S. T, et al., “Adaptive Feedback Canceller: Entrainment”, Digital Signal Processing Workshop, 4th IEEE, PI, (Sep. 1, 2006), 245-250. |
Lalin, S. T, et al., “Continuous Adaptive Feedback Canceller Dynamics”, Circuits and Systems, 49TH IEEE International Midwes T Symposium on, IEEE, PI, (Aug. 1, 2006), 605-609. |
Maxwell, J. A., et al., “Reducing Acoustic Feedback in Hearing Aids”, IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 3(4), (Jul. 1995), 304-313. |
Proakis, J. G, et al., “Digital Signal Processing”, Prentice-Hall, Inc., XP002481168, (1996), 213-214-PAGE536. |
Rife, D., et al., “Transfer-Function Measurement With Maximum-Length Sequences”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 37(6), (1989), 419-444. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 1, 2012”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Response filed Feb. 20, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Aug. 18, 2011”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,567, Notice of Allowance mailed May 31, 2012”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Feb. 8, 2012”, 1 pg. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Notice of Allowance mailed Feb. 15, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Response filed Feb. 2, 2012 to Final Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2011”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460 , Response filed Jun. 27, 2012 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Final Office Action mailed Apr. 27, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Response filed Jan. 30, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Sep. 29, 2011”, 25 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 30, 2012”, 4 pgs. |
“European Application Serial No. 07839768.4, Response filed Apr. 5, 2012 to Office Action mailed Dec. 9, 2011”, 20 pgs. |
Haykin, Simon, “Adaptive Filter Theory: Third Edition: Appendix G Gradient Adaptive Lattice Algorithm”, Prentice Hall, (1996), 5 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 31, 2013, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 17, 2012, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,567, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 28, 2012, 8 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 30, 2012, 3 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2012, 6 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 25, 2012, 10 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Response filed Jul. 30, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 30, 2012, 7 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839766.8, Office Action mailed Jun. 8, 2009, 2 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839766.8, Office Action mailed Jul. 2, 2009, 2 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839766.8, Office Action mailed Sep. 17, 2012, 10 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839766.8, Response filed Jan. 11, 2013 to Office Action mailed Sep. 17, 2012, 16 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839767.6, Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2012, 27 pgs. |
European Application Serial No. 07839767.6, Decision to Grant mailed Jul. 19, 2012, 2 pgs. |
Jenkins, W. Kenneth, et al., “Chapter 22—Transform Domain Adaptive Filtering”, The Digital Signal Processing Handbook, Editors, Vijay K. Madisetti, Douglas B. Williams; Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, (1998), 22-1-22-20. |
Spreiet, Ann, et al., “Adaptive Feedback Cancellation in Hearing Aids With Linear Prediction of the Desired Signal”, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 53(10), (Oct. 2005), 3749-3763. |
Theverapperurna, Lalin S, et al., “Adaptive Feedback Canceller: Entrainment”, Digital Signal Processing Workshop, 12th—Signal Processing Education Workshop, 4th, IEEE, (2006), 245-250. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080095388 A1 | Apr 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60862530 | Oct 2006 | US |