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 an adaptive filter to measure an acoustic feedback path and monitoring the poles of the adaptive filter for indications of entrainment. Various embodiments include comparing the poles of the system transfer function to a pseudo circle of stability for the indication of entrainment of the adaptive filter. Various embodiments include suspending adaptation of the adaptive filter upon indication of entrainment.
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.
The following detailed description of the present invention refers to subject matter in the accompanying drawings which show, by way of illustration, specific aspects and embodiments in which the present subject matter may be practiced. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the present subject matter. References to “an”, “one”, or “various” embodiments in this disclosure are not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references contemplate more than one embodiment. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope is defined only by the appended claims, along with the full scope of legal equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
The present system may be employed in a variety of hardware devices, including hearing assistance devices. Such devices may include a signal processor or other processing hardware to perform functions. One such function is acoustic feedback cancellation using an adaptive filter. In such embodiments, the acoustic feedback cancellation filter models the acoustic feedback path from receiver to microphone of the hearing assistance system to subtract the acoustic feedback that occurs without such correction. In one embodiment, entrainment is avoided by using signal processing electronics to determine the denominator of the system transfer function and analyze the denominator of the system transfer function for stability. If the position of the poles indicate entrainment, the processor determines and implements a change to the adaptation rate of the system.
In general, the present subject matter achieves entrainment avoidance by transforming the denominator of the system transfer function to lattice form and monitoring the reflection coefficients for indication of entrainment. Entrainment is probable where the reflection coefficients approach unity stability.
The feedback canceller system of equations can be transformed to control canonical form and apply the Lyapunov stability as shown below,
The stability of a time linear system of
xk+1=Axk+Buk k=0, 1, 2, . . .
is determined using Lyapunov function, where A is the linear system matrix and x is the input matrix.
V(x)=xTQx,
where V(x) is the Lyapunov function. If the derivative, ΔV(x), is positive near the neighborhood of interest, the system is stable in that neighborhood. x denote the real vector of dimension n, A and Q are quadratic matrices. The derivative of V(x) with respect to time is give by
From above,
ATQA−Q=−S.
This equation has exactly one solution for any given matrix, if Q=QT is positive definite, being denoted by Q>1, if and only if the relation,
αi*αj≠1 and αi≠1 i=0,1,2 . . .
hold for all eigenvalues αi of A.
From the equations above, for a positive definite Q matrix, the eigenvalues of the system B are inside the unit circle of stability. It is known that the solution to discrete time Lyapunov function is the same as looking into a Schur polynomial solution in order reverse form.
The Schur-Cohn stability test has the property of being a recursive algorithm. This is a consequence of the simultaneously algebraic and analytic aspect of the Schur coefficients, which are regarded as reflection coefficients. The denominator polynomial is converted to lattice form with reflection coefficients using Schur polynomials. The reflection coefficient magnitudes are used to evaluate the stability of the system.
The lattice structures with reflection coefficients K1, K2 . . . Km correspond to a class of m direct-form FIR filters with system functions D1(z), D2(z), . . . Dm(z). Given the D(z) matrix, the corresponding lattice filter parameters {Km} are determined. For the m stage lattice system, the initial parameter Km=dm. Km-1 is obtained from the polynomials Dm-1(z) since Km is obtained from the polynomial Dm(z) for m=M−1, M−2, . . . , 1. The lattice filter parameters Km's are computed recursively starting from m=M−1 to m=1 as,
The above equation can be simplified to
The above recursion is known as the Schur-Cohen stability test. In doing that we compute the lower degree polynomials. The procedure works as long as Km 6=1 for m=1, 2, . . . , (M−1). Let denominator polynomials be D(z),
where k is the system delay and M is the number of taps of the feedback canceller.
If poles move outside the unit circle due to instability a new frequency is created. In order to avoid the poles reaching unit circle or stability boundary, In various embodiments, a pseudo unit circle, which is smaller than unit circle, is used for analyzing the stability. Prior to the analyzing the denominator polynomial, D(z) is scaled by a factor. The scaling the polynomial is with,
{tilde over (d)}i=di*ρi for i=0,1,2, . . . ,(M+K−1),
where ρ>1 is a scaling factor which is chosen between 1.01 and 1.05 to arrive at the pseudo circle.
Entrainment avoidance is achieved using the signal processor to analyze the denominator polynomial for stability and changing the adaptation rate of the system depending on the position of the poles. The analysis algorithm includes stages to initialize the feedback canceller, generate future pole positions, analyze the stability of the future pole positions with respect to a pseudo stability circle and adjust the adaptation rate of the feedback canceller in light of the analysis.
Initializing the feedback controller establishes a good estimate of the feedback path, F0(z). A good estimate of the leakage path, F0(z) is necessary to generate the denominator polynomial, D(z). In various embodiments, a good estimate can be found by a forward gain module disconnected white noise initialization, where the system gets simplified to a system identification configuration. The is known to accurately estimate F0 (z). In various embodiments, a good estimate of F0(z) is achieved by copying the Wn(z) coefficients to F0(z) at a point where the feedback canceller is modeling the feedback path. In order to identify a suitable time for copying the coefficients, the convergence accuracy can be analyzed by monitoring the average en values.
Once the denominator polynomial is constructed, the denominator is scaled by multiplications of the denominator as shown above. The scaled denominator is used to identify the pole position of the system at a future iteration.
In various embodiments, the future pole position is converted to Lattice form to evaluate stability. This can be viewed as comparing the poles against a pseudo unit circle described above. Use of the pseudo circle is important since once the poles of the system moves outside the stable region, regaining stability of the system is difficult.
In various embodiments, if the poles move outside the pseudo circle and a update of the filter coefficients is to take place, we stop adaptation by not updating the filter. In some situations if the adaptation is constantly trying to move out of the unit circle in a predictable manner it is possible to reverse the update. This can be viewed as a negative adaptation and can be useful in some situations. If adaptation is stopped for some random movement of a pole outside the circle as the pole returns the adaptation will continue to regain the stability.
By using the Schur polynomials the pole space is translated into the reflection coefficient space. This method is used in time-varying IIR filters. Lattice structure is used to ensure stability of the system without identifying the roots of a system transfer function. If one or more reflection coefficients are larger than one, the system is unstable. For electro-acoustic systems, it is reasonable to conclude that the entrainment is the main driving force of the poles outside the unit circle. An alternate method of combating entrainment includes reversing the adaptation process. This method does bring the system back to stability due to the stochastic nature of the NLMS algorithm, where stopping the system from adapting, reduces the ability of the system to recover from some adverse entrainment conditions.
The following complexity calculation is for comparison with the standards NLMS feedback canceller algorithm for the canceller path. Even though the algorithm is significantly more complex, the performance of this algorithm is similar to the standard NLMS algorithm when the system poles are inside the unit circle. Where M is the number of NLMS filter taps and D is length of the denominator polynomial which
depends on the effective feedback leakage path (identified during the initialization phase). Assuming the denominator length to be same as the feedback canceller length for simplicity, the pole stabilizing algorithm totals to ˜6M complex and 7M simple operations. This is comparatively expensive than the ˜3M complex and 4M simple operations for standard NLMS feedback canceller algorithms. This algorithm can
be decimated to reduce the complexity.
It is understood that the foregoing teachings may be employed in different hardware, firmware, or software configurations and combinations thereof. It is understood that the embodiments set forth herein may be employed in different devices, including, hearing assistance devices, such as hearing aids. Such hearing aids may include, but are not limited to, behind-the-ear, in-the-ear, and completely-in-the-canal designs. Other applications of the foregoing teachings are possible without departing from the scope of the present subject matter.
This application is intended to cover adaptations or 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 claims, along with the full scope of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.
This application is a divisional of and claims the benefit of priority under 35U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/877,606, filed Oct. 23, 2007, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/862,545, filed Oct. 23, 2006, the benefit of priority of each of which is claimed hereby, and each of which are incorporated by reference herein 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 |
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 |
8452034 | Theverapperuma | May 2013 | B2 |
8509465 | Theverapperuma et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8553899 | Salvetti et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
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 |
20080095388 | Theverapperuma | Apr 2008 | 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 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1367857 | Dec 2003 | EP |
1718110 | Feb 2006 | EP |
2080408 | Aug 2012 | EP |
1835708 | May 2013 | 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 |
---|
“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 Apr. 12, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,567, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 28, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,605, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,605, Notice of Allowance mailed Apr. 10, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,605, Response filed Mar. 20, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Non Final Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2012”, 6 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Response filed Apr. 26, 2013 to Non final Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2012”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Response filed Apr. 25, 2013 to Final Office Action mailed Oct. 25, 2012”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Final Office Action mailed Oct. 25, 2012”, 10 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/980,720, Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 14, 2012”, 10 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. |
“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>, (May 10, 2010), 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Examiner Interview Summary mailed Feb. 8, 2012”, 1 pg. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,606, Final Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2011”, 11 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, 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. 11/877,606, Response filed Sep. 12, 2011 to Non-Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2011”, 7 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. |
Beaufays, Francoise, “Transform-Domain Adaptive Filters: An Analytical Approach”, IEEE Trans. on Signal Proc., vol. 43(2), (Feb. 1995), 422-431. |
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. |
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. |
Theverapperuma, Lalin S, et al., “Adaptive Feedback Canceller: Entrainment”, Digital Signal Processing Workshop, 4th IEEE, PI, (Sep. 1, 2006), 245-250. |
Theverapperuma, Lalin S, et al., “Continuous Adaptive Feedback Canceller Dynamics”, Circuits and Systems, 49th IEEE International Midwes T Symposium on, IEEE, PI, (Aug. 1, 2006), 605-609. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,317, Notice of Allowance mailed Jun. 1, 2012”, 12 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,567, Notice of Allowance mailed May 31, 2012”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 11/877,605 , Response filed Jul. 9, 2012 to Final Office Action mailed Apr. 9, 2012”, 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, Advisory Action mailed Jul. 30, 2012”, 3 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Response filed Jul. 30, 2012 to Non Final Office Action mailed Jan. 30, 2012”, 7 pgs. |
Haykin, Simon, “Adaptive Filter Theory: Third Edition: Appendix G Gradient Adaptive Lattice Algorithm”, Prentice Hall, (1996), 5 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Notice of Allowance mailed May 10, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/336,460, Supplemental Notice of Allowability mailed Sep. 13, 2013”, 2 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Non Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2013”, 9 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/875,646, Response filed Oct. 10, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed May 10, 2013”, 11 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/980, Response filed May 14, 2013 to Non Final Office Action mailed Dec. 14, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/980,720, Notice of Allowance mailed May 29, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
“U.S. Appl. No. 12/980,720, Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 11, 2013”, 8 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120230503 A1 | Sep 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60862545 | Oct 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11877606 | Oct 2007 | US |
Child | 13478570 | US |