Microphone Occlusion Mitigation for Own-Voice Enhancement in Head-Worn Microphone Arrays Using Switching-Adaptive Beamforming

Ali Aroudi; Daniel D. E. Wong; Jung-Suk Lee; Saeed Bagheri Sereshki; Vladimir Tourbabin; Wiebke Middelberg

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Microphone Occlusion Mitigation for Own-Voice Enhancement in Head-Worn Microphone Arrays Using Switching-Adaptive Beamforming

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a hybrid switching-adaptive MVDR beamformer, which maintains two sets of covariance matrices for occluded and unoccluded states, yields less own-voice distortion than a conventional adaptive beamformer when occlusion…

desk verdict A sensible, clearly written engineering paper on occlusion-robust own-voice beamforming, but the key fast-switching advantage is measured only under perfectly matched occlusion transfer functions and a very small test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09350 v1 pith:UWGGQINU submitted 2025-07-12 eess.AS

Wiebke Middelberg , Jung-Suk Lee , Saeed Bagheri Sereshki , Ali Aroudi , Vladimir Tourbabin , Daniel D. E. Wong This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AS

keywords microphoneocclusionown-voiceenhancementhead-wornarrayMVDRbeamformingadaptiveswitching-adaptivebeamformervoiceactivitydetection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper addresses a failure mode that is easy to overlook: in head-worn microphone arrays, one microphone can be sporadically blocked by skin, hair, or clothing, and the resulting change in the microphone's transfer function degrades beamforming for the wearer's own voice. The authors compare three strategies: a conventional adaptive MVDR beamformer, a switching beamformer that flips between precomputed filters for occluded and unoccluded states, and a new hybrid switching-adaptive beamformer that adapts two separate sets of covariance matrices, one per occlusion state. The central claim, supported by recordings with simulated dynamic occlusions, is that the hybrid handles rapidly alternating occlusion (24 and 48 switches per utterance) with less own-voice distortion than conventional adaptation, while matching it for slower patterns and beating the pure switching version in SNR improvement when a good voice-activity detector is available. This matters because real head-worn devices are subject to exactly this kind of dynamic occlusion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MVDR beamformer whose filter vector $w$ is computed from the noise covariance matrix and the relative transfer function (RTF) of the own-voice source. The paper introduces occlusion transfer functions $B_o$ and $G_o$ for the speech and noise components of the first microphone, mapping the unoccluded speech and noise into the occluded state via diagonal matrices $B$ and $G$, so that occluded RTF vectors and noise covariance matrices can be derived from unoccluded ones. On top of this, the switching-adaptive mechanism maintains two sets of covariance matrices $\hat{R}_{y,\nu}$ and $\hat{R}_{n,\nu}$, updated by recursive smoothing only while the corresponding occlusion state is active, so each state's statistics reflect the true signal characteristics even under rapid transitions. The a-priori estimates initialize the filter and provide the fixed filter for the purely switching variant, and it is this dual-set adaptivity that lets the hybrid respond instantly to an occlusion switch while still tracking the acoustic scene.

What would settle it

Run the same switching-adaptive and adaptive beamformers on recordings in which the occluding condition (e.g., different hair density, a hand over the microphone, or a different wearer's anatomy) produces occlusion transfer functions that differ from the a-priori ones stored in the beamformer; the central claim is falsified if the hybrid loses its own-voice distortion advantage or the switching beamformer's SNR improvement collapses under such mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the switching-adaptive MVDR beamformer—which runs two covariance estimators in parallel, one for the occluded state and one for the unoccluded state, and applies the one matching the current occlusion detection—tracks fast occlusion dynamics better than a single adaptive beamformer. In the experiments, the purely adaptive beamformer induces noticeably higher own-voice distortion when occlusion switches 24 or 48 times per utterance, whereas the hybrid's distortion stays close to that of the purely switching beamformer built on a-priori transfer functions. At the same time, with an oracle or a voice-activity detector with only 5% false negatives, the hybrid preserves roughly 10 dB of SNR improvement, outperforming the purely switching beamformer, whose filters cannot adapt to the acoustic scene. The paper therefore identifies a trade-off: the switching component supplies fast reconfiguration and tolerance to voice-activity-detection errors, while the adaptive component supplies scene adaptation.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the a-priori occlusion transfer functions used to build the switching and hybrid beamformer weights exactly match the actual occlusion transfer functions applied in the test recordings, so the advantage may shrink or vanish if real occlusions differ across users, materials, or seating.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In highly dynamic occlusion patterns, the hybrid beamformer will keep own-voice distortion low where a conventional adaptive beamformer would smear the speech.
When the voice activity detector is unreliable, the purely switching beamformer is the safer choice because it does not depend on voice activity detection at all.
When a good voice activity detector is available, the hybrid retains most of the adaptive beamformer's SNR improvement, giving the best combined behavior under dynamic occlusion.
Maintaining two covariance matrices raises computational and memory cost, a trade-off that must be weighed on resource-constrained head-worn devices.
The methods require a reliable occlusion detector, so the end-to-end benefit in practice depends on detection accuracy as well as beamformer design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the simulated occlusions were generated with the same transfer functions the beamformers are given as a-priori knowledge, the reported advantage is a best-case matched scenario; testing with transfer functions from different users, materials, or occlusion geometries would show how much margin remains.
The same two-state switching-adaptive structure could be applied to other discrete array changes, such as frame deformation, wind buffeting, or near-field head movement, whenever the set of possible transfer functions is known in advance.
Replacing the binary occlusion state with a soft or probabilistic estimate would let the beamformer blend between the two covariance sets during ambiguous frames, potentially smoothing transitions.
The own-voice distortion metric is objective; a listening study could test whether the measured distortion differences are perceptually meaningful to users.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the hybrid switching-adaptive beamformer is a real, if modest, new combination. It maintains separate noisy and noise covariance matrices and RTF estimates for occluded and unoccluded states, initialized from a-priori occlusion transfer functions, and it is evaluated against both purely adaptive and purely switching MVDR baselines. The paper is clean: the signal model and update rules are standard, the GEVD-based RTF estimator is correctly specified, and the evaluation covers several SNRs, switch rates, and VAD errors. I found no math errors.

What is good: the problem is real and rarely addressed for head-worn arrays. The result that the adaptive baseline struggles with 24 or 48 switches per utterance while the hybrid keeps own-voice distortion lower is consistent with the algorithm's design. The VAD-robustness comparison is also useful, and the purely switching beamformer's independence from VAD is demonstrated honestly.

Soft spots: the main one is exactly what your stress-test note says. Section 4.1 creates occlusion by imposing the averaged occlusion transfer functions from Fig. 1, and Algorithm 1 initializes the switched covariance matrices from the same averaged tilde B and tilde G. So the switching and hybrid systems are tested under perfectly matched conditions, while the purely adaptive baseline receives no such prior. The paper itself shows large standard deviations in Fig. 1, so mismatch is not a hypothetical concern. With 48 switches in a roughly 13 s utterance, the mean duration per state is about 0.27 s, close to the 0.3 s covariance forgetting time; under mismatch there may be little time to adapt away from a wrong initialization. That means the headline OVD advantage under rapid switching may not survive real-user variability. Also, the evaluation uses only 6 noisy utterances (three speech by two noise), which is small for strong conclusions, and the occlusion detector is oracle. These limitations are stated, but their severity is underplayed: the conclusion that the hybrid is preferable for fast dynamics rests on a matched, small-sample test.

The citation pattern is fine; [16] is the closest prior work and is properly credited. There is no problematic self-citation. The algorithms are not fitted to test labels in the usual sense, but the a-priori occlusion transfer functions used to build the beamformers are also used to generate the test data, which is a partial circularity.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. A revision should add a mismatch analysis (for example, using per-user or perturbed occlusion transfer functions), more utterances, and ideally real occlusion recordings. If those confirm the trend, it becomes a solid contribution; currently it is promising but not fully convincing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses own-voice enhancement for head-worn microphone arrays when one microphone is sporadically occluded, focusing on the case where the occlusion transfer functions change rapidly. It proposes and compares three MVDR-based strategies: (i) a conventional adaptive beamformer with recursively smoothed covariance matrices and GEVD-based RTF estimation, (ii) a switching beamformer that alternates between two fixed, a-priori computed filters for the occluded and unoccluded states, and (iii) a hybrid switching-adaptive beamformer that maintains two state-dependent covariance matrices and adapts them only in the active state. The evaluation uses real-world speech and noise recordings with simulated occlusions, at three SNRs and four occlusion-switch rates, with oracle or slightly erroneous VAD. The central reported finding is that the hybrid beamformer produces lower own-voice distortion than the adaptive MVDR beamformer when the occlusion state switches 24 or 48 times per utterance, performs similarly to the adaptive beamformer for static patterns, and offers larger SNR improvement than the purely switching beamformer when a good VAD is available.

Significance. If the results hold under realistic mismatch, the hybrid switching-adaptive beamformer is a practical contribution to dynamic-occlusion handling in hearables and AR glasses. The paper is clearly written, the signal model and algorithms are standard and mostly well specified, and the inclusion of VAD-error robustness is useful. A notable strength is that the evaluation uses real recorded speech and noise rather than synthetic arrays. However, the matched-condition nature of the simulation and the small evaluation set mean that the main quantitative claim is currently supported only in a favorable, controlled setting. The paper would be strengthened by a mismatch experiment and by a more detailed statistical reporting. With those additions, the contribution would be solid for a conference or workshop venue.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.1 and Algorithm 1] The simulated occlusions are generated by imposing the occlusion transfer functions of Fig. 1 on the unoccluded signals, and the switching/hybrid beamformers are initialized with a-priori estimates tilde B and tilde G whose natural source is the same data. The paper never states that a mismatch was introduced between these a-priori estimates and the occlusions applied in the test, so the switching and hybrid approaches are effectively evaluated under perfectly matched conditions, while the adaptive baseline is not given any such side information. Since Fig. 1 shows substantial standard deviations across users and sound fields, the reported advantage of the hybrid beamformer at 24 and 48 switches per utterance may not transfer to real-world occlusion variability. Please add a mismatch experiment (e.g., leave-one-user-out a-priori estimates or perturbed Bo and Go) and report the OVD and SNR results under mismatch, or temper the conclusions to the matched-condition setting.
[Algorithm 1] In the VAD=0 branch of the noise covariance update, the smoothing coefficient is printed as alpha_y instead of alpha_n. Section 3.1 defines two different smoothing constants with forgetting times of 0.3 s and 0.5 s, so the algorithm as written is internally inconsistent. Please correct the typo and clarify in the text which smoothing constant was actually used in the reported experiments, since this directly affects the adaptation speed of the proposed hybrid beamformer.
[Section 4.1 and Section 4.2] The evaluation is based on only six noisy signals, formed from three speech signals and two noise signals. The central claims about 24 and 48 switches per utterance rest on differences between mean values with error bars computed over these six signals, and the paper does not report per-condition numerical values, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Some of the reported differences may have overlapping error bars. Please provide a table of the individual results, add a statistical assessment, and, if feasible, increase the number of speech and noise samples so that the high-switch-rate conclusions are supported by more than six utterances.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.1] Please specify whether the six noisy signals are the full 13-second recordings or six unique utterances, and clarify how the same occlusion pattern is applied across the three input SNRs.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to 'SNR improvement with occluded microphone as reference line,' while Section 4.2 describes the gray line as the SNR improvement of the nose pad microphone relative to the reference microphone. Please align the wording.
[Section 2, Eq. (7)] The definition of Bo requires that the first microphone is not the reference microphone; this condition is stated only in a parenthetical note later. Please state it explicitly before Eq. (7) to avoid ambiguity.
[Title and Abstract] The title in the manuscript body contains an errant space in 'Own-V oice Enhancement'; this should be corrected to 'Own-Voice Enhancement.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Evaluation is matched-condition: the same occlusion transfer functions (Fig. 1) are imposed on test signals and used as the a-priori inputs (tilde B, tilde G) of the switching/hybrid beamformers, partly forcing the reported fast-switching advantage.

other [Section 3.2 / Algorithm 1 and Section 4.1 / Fig. 1]
"we assume that the occluded and unoccluded relative transfer functions, i.e., an a-priori estimate, denoted by a tilde, of the (unoccluded) RTF vector ˜hø (cf. (3)) and the occluded transfer functions for speech and noise ˜Bo and ˜Go in (7), respectively, are available. … To simulate authentic occlusion patterns, the occlusion transfer functions (see Fig. 1) were imposed on the unoccluded microphone signals before mixing."

Algorithm 1 takes these tilde quantities as inputs and initializes both state covariance matrices from them. Section 4.1 creates the occluded recordings by applying exactly the same transfer functions shown in Fig. 1 to the unoccluded signals. The paper does not state that ˜B/˜G are the Fig. 1 averages, but no other occlusion transfer functions are used or tested, so Fig. 1 is the only documented source for the priors. The switching and hybrid beamformers are thus initialized with the ground-truth occlusion mapping, while the purely adaptive baseline uses no such prior. The hybrid's lower OVD at 24 and 48 switches is partly forced by this matched test, not demonstrated under realistic prior mismatch; the standard deviations in Fig. 1 show variability that is not exercised.

full rationale

The signal-processing derivation itself is self-contained: the MVDR, GEVD RTF estimation, recursive covariance smoothing, and the switching/hybrid update rules are standard and not derived from the target result. There is no load-bearing self-citation; references to prior work by the authors (e.g., [8], [25]) only support generic covariance estimation or are non-essential. The circularity concern is confined to the evaluation. The paper simulates occlusion by imposing the Fig. 1 occlusion transfer functions on unoccluded recordings, and the switching and hybrid algorithms are initialized from a-priori tilde B/tilde G estimates whose only documented source is the same Fig. 1 data. Thus, for the two approaches that use a-priori occlusion knowledge, the test provides perfect prior knowledge of the occlusion mapping, giving them an advantage over the purely adaptive baseline that is not representative of real-world mismatch (user, fit, material, position). The central claim that the hybrid has lower own-voice distortion under rapid switching is an empirical result with real adaptation and VAD errors, so it is not fully forced; however, the matched-condition setup partially builds in the advantage. Because this is evaluation circularity rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs, and because no self-citation chain carries the argument, a score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method uses standard beamforming machinery; the new assumptions are the two-state occlusion model and the availability of matched a-priori transfer functions. The evaluation never tests what happens when these a-priori transfer functions are wrong.

free parameters (1)

smoothing constants alpha_y and alpha_n = forgetting times 0.3 s and 0.5 s
Set by hand in Section 4.1; they control adaptation speed and influence how quickly the adaptive and switching-adaptive beamformers track occlusion changes. They are not fitted to the reported metrics.

assumptions (6)

standard math Multiplicative transfer function approximation in the STFT domain (Eq. 3)
Standard assumption [21] that allows the speech vector to be written as an RTF times the reference speech.
domain assumption Speech and noise are statistically independent (Eq. 5)
Needed to decompose the noisy covariance into speech and noise components.
domain assumption Noise covariance matrix is full rank (Section 2)
Required for the MVDR inverse and GEVD-based RTF estimation.
domain assumption A reliable occlusion detector is available (Section 1)
All switching and hybrid methods switch based on OD(t); the authors explicitly outsource detection to prior work [19], [20].
domain assumption A-priori estimates of RTF and occlusion transfer functions are available and representative (Section 3.2)
The switching and hybrid beamformers rely on tilde h, tilde B, tilde G; the evaluation supplies the true values from Fig. 1, so mismatch is never tested.
domain assumption Diffuse noise model for the a-priori noise covariance (Section 3.2)
Used to construct tilde R_n,o from the unoccluded diffuse noise model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microphone Occlusion Mitigation for Own-Voice Enhancement in Head-Worn Microphone Arrays Using Switching-Adaptive Beamforming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWGGQINU

@misc{pith2026250709350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microphone Occlusion Mitigation for Own-Voice Enhancement in Head-Worn Microphone Arrays Using Switching-Adaptive Beamforming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWGGQINU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09350}
}

read the original abstract

Enhancing the user's own-voice for head-worn microphone arrays is an important task in noisy environments to allow for easier speech communication and user-device interaction. However, a rarely addressed challenge is the change of the microphones' transfer functions when one or more of the microphones gets occluded by skin, clothes or hair. The underlying problem for beamforming-based speech enhancement is the (potentially rapidly) changing transfer functions of both the own-voice and the noise component that have to be accounted for to achieve optimal performance. In this paper, we address the problem of an occluded microphone in a head-worn microphone array. We investigate three alternative mitigation approaches by means of (i) conventional adaptive beamforming, (ii) switching between a-priori estimates of the beamformer coefficients for the occluded and unoccluded state, and (iii) a hybrid approach using a switching-adaptive beamformer. In an evaluation with real-world recordings and simulated occlusion, we demonstrate the advantages of the different approaches in terms of noise reduction, own-voice distortion and robustness against voice activity detection errors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[16]

Time-frequency-bin- wise switching of minimum variance distortionless response beamformer for underdetermined situations,

K. Yamaoka, N. Ono, S. Makino, and T. Yamada, “Time-frequency-bin- wise switching of minimum variance distortionless response beamformer for underdetermined situations,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Brighton, UK, Apr. 2019, pp. 7908–7912

work page 2019
[1]

Near-field signal acquisition for smartglasses using two acoustic vector-sensors,

D. Y . Levin, E. A. Habets, and S. Gannot, “Near-field signal acquisition for smartglasses using two acoustic vector-sensors,” Speech Communication, vol. 83, pp. 42–53, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Multichannel speech enhancement with own voice-based interfering speech suppression for hearing assistive devices,

P. Hoang, J. M. de Haan, Z.-H. Tan, and J. Jensen, “Multichannel speech enhancement with own voice-based interfering speech suppression for hearing assistive devices,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 30, pp. 706–720, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Modeling of speech- dependent own voice transfer characteristics for hearables with an in-ear microphone,

M. Ohlenbusch, C. Rollwage, and S. Doclo, “Modeling of speech- dependent own voice transfer characteristics for hearables with an in-ear microphone,” Acta Acustica , vol. 8, p. 28, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Benesty, M

J. Benesty, M. M. Sondhi, Y . Huang et al. , Springer handbook of speech processing. Springer, 2008, vol. 1

work page 2008
[5]

Multichannel signal enhancement algorithms for assisted listening devices: Exploiting spatial diversity using multiple microphones,

S. Doclo, W. Kellermann, S. Makino, and S. E. Nordholm, “Multichannel signal enhancement algorithms for assisted listening devices: Exploiting spatial diversity using multiple microphones,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 18–30, Mar. 2015

2015
[6]

A consolidated perspective on multi-microphone speech enhancement and source separation,

S. Gannot, E. Vincent, S. Markovich-Golan, and A. Ozerov, “A consolidated perspective on multi-microphone speech enhancement and source separation,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 25, pp. 692–730, Apr. 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Motion-tolerant beamforming with deformable microphone arrays,

R. M. Corey and A. C. Singer, “Motion-tolerant beamforming with deformable microphone arrays,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA) . New Paltz, NY , USA: IEEE, 2019, pp. 115–119

work page 2019

Show all 31 references

[8]

Nice-beam: Neural integrated covariance estimators for time-varying beamformers,

J. Casebeer, J. Donley, D. Wong, B. Xu, and A. Kumar, “Nice-beam: Neural integrated covariance estimators for time-varying beamformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04613 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[9]

Beamforming: A versatile approach to spatial filtering,

B. D. Van Veen and K. M. Buckley, “Beamforming: A versatile approach to spatial filtering,” IEEE ASSP Magazine , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 4–24, Apr. 1988

1988
[10]

Sensitivity analysis of MVDR and MPDR beamformers,

L. Ehrenberg, S. Gannot, A. Leshem, and E. Zehavi, “Sensitivity analysis of MVDR and MPDR beamformers,” in Proc. IEEE Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel , Eilat, Israel, Dec. 2010, pp. 416–420

2010
[11]

Multi-channel speech separation using spatially selective deep non-linear filters,

K. Tesch and T. Gerkmann, “Multi-channel speech separation using spatially selective deep non-linear filters,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 32, pp. 542–553, Nov. 2023

2023
[12]

Meta- learning for variable array configurations in end-to-end few-shot multichannel speech enhancement,

A. Mannanova, K. Tesch, J.-M. Lemercier, and T. Gerkmann, “Meta- learning for variable array configurations in end-to-end few-shot multichannel speech enhancement,” in Proc. International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) , Aalborg, Denmark, 2024, pp. 200–204

2024
[13]

A calibration algorithm for robust generalized sidelobe cancelling beamformers,

P. Oak and W. Kellermann, “A calibration algorithm for robust generalized sidelobe cancelling beamformers,” in Proc. International Workshop on Acoustic Echo and Noise Control (IWAENC) . Eindhoven, Netherlands: Citeseer, 2005, pp. 97–100

2005
[14]

Variational bayesian multi-channel robust NMF for human-voice enhancement with a deformable and partially-occluded microphone array,

Y . Bando, K. Itoyama, M. Konyo, S. Tadokoro, K. Nakadai, K. Yoshii, and H. G. Okuno, “Variational bayesian multi-channel robust NMF for human-voice enhancement with a deformable and partially-occluded microphone array,” in Proc. European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO)...

2016
[15]

Online speech dereverberation using mixture of multichannel linear prediction models,

R. Ikeshita, K. Kinoshita, N. Kamo, and T. Nakatani, “Online speech dereverberation using mixture of multichannel linear prediction models,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 28, pp. 1580–1584, 2021

2021
[17]

Dictionary-based fusion of contact and acoustic microphones for wind noise reduction,

M. Tammen, X. Li, S. Doclo, and L. Theverapperuma, “Dictionary-based fusion of contact and acoustic microphones for wind noise reduction,” in Proc. International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC), Bamberg, Germany, 2022, pp. 1–5

2022
[18]

Probabilistic spatial dictionary based online adaptive beamforming for meeting recognition in noisy and reverberant environments,

N. Ito, S. Araki, M. Delcroix, and T. Nakatani, “Probabilistic spatial dictionary based online adaptive beamforming for meeting recognition in noisy and reverberant environments,” in Proc. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , New Orlea...

2017
[19]

Low-complexity, robust algorithm for sensor anomaly detection and self-calibration of microphone arrays,

N. Madhu and R. Martin, “Low-complexity, robust algorithm for sensor anomaly detection and self-calibration of microphone arrays,” IET signal processing, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 97–103, 2011

2011
[20]

Signal Processing for Microphone Blockage Detection,

M. D. Gaal, A. R. Berkovich, and E. D. Prins, “Signal Processing for Microphone Blockage Detection,” U.S. Patent Application US20190014429A1, Jan. 2019

2019
[21]

On multiplicative transfer function approximation in the short-time Fourier transform domain,

Y . Avargel and I. Cohen, “On multiplicative transfer function approximation in the short-time Fourier transform domain,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 337–340, 2007

2007
[22]

Speech enhancement using a minimum-mean square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator,

Y . Ephraim and D. Malah, “Speech enhancement using a minimum-mean square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator,” IEEE Trans. on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1109–1121, 1984

1984
[23]

RTF-Steered Binaural MVDR Beamforming Incorporating an External Microphone for Dynamic Acoustic Scenarios,

N. G ¨oßling and S. Doclo, “RTF-Steered Binaural MVDR Beamforming Incorporating an External Microphone for Dynamic Acoustic Scenarios,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Brighton, UK, May 2019, pp. 416–420

2019
[24]

Online dereverberation for dynamic scenarios using a kalman filter with an autoregressive model,

S. Braun and E. A. P. Habets, “Online dereverberation for dynamic scenarios using a kalman filter with an autoregressive model,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1741–1745, 2016

2016
[25]

Adaptive multi-channel signal enhancement based on multi-source contribution estimation,

J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, B. Rafaely, and R. Mehra, “Adaptive multi-channel signal enhancement based on multi-source contribution estimation,” in Proc. European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) . Dublin, Ireland: IEEE, 2021, pp. 276–280

2021
[26]

G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations. JHU press, 2013

2013
[27]

Multichannel eigenspace beamforming in a reverberant noisy environment with multiple interfering speech signals,

S. Markovich, S. Gannot, and I. Cohen, “Multichannel eigenspace beamforming in a reverberant noisy environment with multiple interfering speech signals,” IEEE Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1071–1086, Aug. 2009

2009
[28]

Speech enhancement with a GSC-like structure employing eigenvector-based transfer function ratios estimation,

A. Krueger, E. Warsitz, and R. Haeb-Umbach, “Speech enhancement with a GSC-like structure employing eigenvector-based transfer function ratios estimation,” IEEE Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 206–219, Apr. 2011

2011
[29]

Low-rank approx- imation based multichannel Wiener filter algorithms for noise reduction with application in cochlear implants,

R. Serizel, M. Moonen, B. van Dijk, and J. Wouters, “Low-rank approx- imation based multichannel Wiener filter algorithms for noise reduction with application in cochlear implants,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 785–799, Apr. 2014

2014
[30]

A tutorial on generalized eigendecomposition for denoising, contrast enhancement, and dimension reduction in multichannel electrophysiology,

M. X. Cohen, “A tutorial on generalized eigendecomposition for denoising, contrast enhancement, and dimension reduction in multichannel electrophysiology,” Neuroimage, vol. 247, p. 118809, 2022

2022
[31]

SDR – half-baked or well done?

J. L. Roux, S. Wisdom, H. Erdogan, and J. R. Hershey, “SDR – half-baked or well done?” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Brighton, UK, 2019, pp. 626–630

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Time-frequency-bin- wise switching of minimum variance distortionless response beamformer for underdetermined situations,

K. Yamaoka, N. Ono, S. Makino, and T. Yamada, “Time-frequency-bin- wise switching of minimum variance distortionless response beamformer for underdetermined situations,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Brighton, UK, Apr. 2019, pp. 7908–7912

work page 2019

[2] [1]

Near-field signal acquisition for smartglasses using two acoustic vector-sensors,

D. Y . Levin, E. A. Habets, and S. Gannot, “Near-field signal acquisition for smartglasses using two acoustic vector-sensors,” Speech Communication, vol. 83, pp. 42–53, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [2]

Multichannel speech enhancement with own voice-based interfering speech suppression for hearing assistive devices,

P. Hoang, J. M. de Haan, Z.-H. Tan, and J. Jensen, “Multichannel speech enhancement with own voice-based interfering speech suppression for hearing assistive devices,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 30, pp. 706–720, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [3]

Modeling of speech- dependent own voice transfer characteristics for hearables with an in-ear microphone,

M. Ohlenbusch, C. Rollwage, and S. Doclo, “Modeling of speech- dependent own voice transfer characteristics for hearables with an in-ear microphone,” Acta Acustica , vol. 8, p. 28, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Benesty, M

J. Benesty, M. M. Sondhi, Y . Huang et al. , Springer handbook of speech processing. Springer, 2008, vol. 1

work page 2008

[6] [5]

Multichannel signal enhancement algorithms for assisted listening devices: Exploiting spatial diversity using multiple microphones,

S. Doclo, W. Kellermann, S. Makino, and S. E. Nordholm, “Multichannel signal enhancement algorithms for assisted listening devices: Exploiting spatial diversity using multiple microphones,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 18–30, Mar. 2015

2015

[7] [6]

A consolidated perspective on multi-microphone speech enhancement and source separation,

S. Gannot, E. Vincent, S. Markovich-Golan, and A. Ozerov, “A consolidated perspective on multi-microphone speech enhancement and source separation,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 25, pp. 692–730, Apr. 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

Motion-tolerant beamforming with deformable microphone arrays,

R. M. Corey and A. C. Singer, “Motion-tolerant beamforming with deformable microphone arrays,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA) . New Paltz, NY , USA: IEEE, 2019, pp. 115–119

work page 2019