{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020512820512820513, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014102564102564103, 'mean_word_length': 5.450413223140496, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Processing the telephone speech signal for the hearing impaired.

Speech intelligibility scores from 16 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss were evaluated using a digitized version of the California Consonant Test that was presented via headphones through a 300 to 3000 Hz bandpass filter to simulate the telephone band. Each subject was tested with an unprocessed signal that was frequency-equalized to compensate for the individual's hearing loss, and a signal that was equalized and compressed by the use of a compressor compression technique. Subjects were tested at three sound pressure levels above a pure-tone average threshold for frequencies 1 and 2 kHz. Two digital signal processing techniques designed to compensate for high-frequency hearing loss were examined: frequency domain processing and time domain processing. Frequency domain involved modification of the short-term spectrum obtained through a fast Fourier transform, whereas time domain processing involved passing the signal through a bank of finite impulse response filters. Both techniques showed significant intelligibility improvements (15-30%). In a second experiment, 16 additional subjects with high-frequency hearing loss compared an amplified telephone signal to three processed signals: (1) 6 dB per octave emphasis; (2) a signal frequency equalized for their hearing loss; and (3) a signal that was equalized for their hearing loss and was compressed according to their uncomfortable loudness levels. Most subjects preferred the signal with the 6 dB per octave emphasis.