scholarly journals Broad binaural fusion impairs segregation of speech based on voice pitch differences in a ‘cocktail party’ environment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonghee Oh ◽  
Curtis L. Hartling ◽  
Nirmal Kumar Srinivasan ◽  
Morgan Eddolls ◽  
Anna C. Diedesch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Cocktail Party ◽  
Voice Pitch ◽  
Strong Negative Correlation ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Central Auditory Neurons

ABSTRACTIn the normal auditory system, central auditory neurons are sharply tuned to the same frequency ranges for each ear. This precise tuning is mirrored behaviorally as the binaural fusion of tones evoking similar pitches across ears. In contrast, hearing-impaired listeners exhibit abnormally broad tuning of binaural pitch fusion, fusing sounds with pitches differing by up to 3-4 octaves across ears into a single object. Here we present evidence that such broad fusion may similarly impair the segregation and recognition of speech based on voice pitch differences in a ‘cocktail party’ environment. Speech recognition performance in a multi-talker environment was measured in four groups of adult subjects: normal-hearing (NH) listeners and hearing-impaired listeners with bilateral hearing aids (HAs), bimodal cochlear implant (CI) worn with a contralateral HA, or bilateral CIs. Performance was measured as the threshold target-to-masker ratio needed to understand a target talker in the presence of masker talkers either co-located or symmetrically spatially separated from the target. Binaural pitch fusion was also measured. Voice pitch differences between target and masker talkers improved speech recognition performance for the NH, bilateral HA, and bimodal CI groups, but not the bilateral CI group. Spatial separation only improved performance for the NH group, indicating an inability of the hearing-impaired groups to benefit from spatial release from masking. A moderate to strong negative correlation was observed between the benefit from voice pitch differences and the breadth of binaural pitch fusion in all groups except the bilateral CI group in the co-located spatial condition. Hence, tuning of binaural pitch fusion predicts the ability to segregate voices based on pitch when acoustic cues are available. The findings suggest that obligatory binaural fusion, with a concomitant loss of information from individual streams, may occur at a level of processing before auditory object formation and segregation.

scholarly journals Multitasking with typical use of hearing aid noise reduction in older listeners

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Schoof ◽  
Pamela Souza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Dual Task Paradigm

Objective: Older hearing-impaired adults typically experience difficulties understanding speech in noise. Most hearing aids address this issue using digital noise reduction. While noise reduction does not necessarily improve speech recognition, it may reduce the resources required to process the speech signal. Those available resources may, in turn, aid the ability to perform another task while listening to speech (i.e., multitasking). This study examined to what extent changing the strength of digital noise reduction in hearing aids affects the ability to multitask. Design: Multitasking was measured using a dual-task paradigm, combining a speech recognition task and a visual monitoring task. The speech recognition task involved sentence recognition in the presence of six-talker babble at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 2 and 7 dB. Participants were fit with commercially-available hearing aids programmed under three noise reduction settings: off, mild, strong. Study sample: 18 hearing-impaired older adults. Results: There were no effects of noise reduction on the ability to multitask, or on the ability to recognize speech in noise. Conclusions: Adjustment of noise reduction settings in the clinic may not invariably improve performance for some tasks.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

scholarly journals Recognition of Synthetic Speech by Hearing-Impaired Elderly Listeners

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1180-1184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Kathleen J. Nelson ◽  
David B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
The Other ◽  
Natural Speech ◽  
Synthetic Speech ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Open Set

The Modified Rhyme Test (MRT), recorded using natural speech and two forms of synthetic speech, DECtalk and Votrax, was used to measure both open-set and closed-set speech-recognition performance. Performance of hearing-impaired elderly listeners was compared to two groups of young normal-hearing adults, one listening in quiet, and the other listening in a background of spectrally shaped noise designed to simulate the peripheral hearing loss of the elderly. Votrax synthetic speech yielded significant decrements in speech recognition compared to either natural or DECtalk synthetic speech for all three subject groups. There were no differences in performance between natural speech and DECtalk speech for the elderly hearing-impaired listeners or the young listeners with simulated hearing loss. The normal-hearing young adults listening in quiet out-performed both of the other groups, but there were no differences in performance between the young listeners with simulated hearing loss and the elderly hearing-impaired listeners. When the closed-set identification of synthetic speech was compared to its open-set recognition, the hearing-impaired elderly gained as much from the reduction in stimulus/response uncertainty as the two younger groups. Finally, among the elderly hearing-impaired listeners, speech-recognition performance was correlated negatively with hearing sensitivity, but scores were correlated positively among the different talker conditions. Those listeners with the greatest hearing loss had the most difficulty understanding speech and those having the most trouble understanding natural speech also had the greatest difficulty with synthetic speech.

scholarly journals Speech Perception for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients in a Realistic Background Noise: Effectiveness of Preprocessing Strategies and External Options for Improving Speech Recognition in Noise

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (07) ◽  
pp. 441-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
René H. Gifford ◽  
Lawrence J. Revit
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Listening In Noise

Background: Although cochlear implant patients are achieving increasingly higher levels of performance, speech perception in noise continues to be problematic. The newest generations of implant speech processors are equipped with preprocessing and/or external accessories that are purported to improve listening in noise. Most speech perception measures in the clinical setting, however, do not provide a close approximation to real-world listening environments. Purpose: To assess speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in the presence of a realistic restaurant simulation generated by an eight-loudspeaker (R-SPACE™) array in order to determine whether commercially available preprocessing strategies and/or external accessories yield improved sentence recognition in noise. Research Design: Single-subject, repeated-measures design with two groups of participants: Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation recipients. Study Sample: Thirty-four subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 90 yr (mean 54.5 yr), participated in this prospective study. Fourteen subjects were Advanced Bionics recipients, and 20 subjects were Cochlear Corporation recipients. Intervention: Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from an eight-loudspeaker array were assessed with the subjects' preferred listening programs as well as with the addition of either Beam™ preprocessing (Cochlear Corporation) or the T-Mic® accessory option (Advanced Bionics). Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiment 1, adaptive SRTs with the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were obtained for all 34 subjects. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, SRTs were obtained with their preferred everyday listening program as well as with the addition of Focus preprocessing. For Advanced Bionics recipients, SRTs were obtained with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) mic as well as with the T-Mic. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of the preprocessing strategy or external accessory in reducing the SRT in noise. In addition, a standard t-test was run to evaluate effectiveness across manufacturer for improving the SRT in noise. In Experiment 2, 16 of the 20 Cochlear Corporation subjects were reassessed obtaining an SRT in noise using the manufacturer-suggested “Everyday,” “Noise,” and “Focus” preprocessing strategies. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess the effects of preprocessing. Results: The primary findings were (i) both Noise and Focus preprocessing strategies (Cochlear Corporation) significantly improved the SRT in noise as compared to Everyday preprocessing, (ii) the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics) significantly improved the SRT as compared to the BTE mic, and (iii) Focus preprocessing and the T-Mic resulted in similar degrees of improvement that were not found to be significantly different from one another. Conclusion: Options available in current cochlear implant sound processors are able to significantly improve speech understanding in a realistic, semidiffuse noise with both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics systems. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, Focus preprocessing yields the best speech-recognition performance in a complex listening environment; however, it is recommended that Noise preprocessing be used as the new default for everyday listening environments to avoid the need for switching programs throughout the day. For Advanced Bionics recipients, the T-Mic offers significantly improved performance in noise and is recommended for everyday use in all listening environments.

Some Effects of Training on Speech Recognition by Hearing-Impaired Adults

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Sue A. Erdman ◽  
Allen A. Montgomery ◽  
Daniel M. Schwartz ◽  
Robert A. Prosek
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Aural Rehabilitation ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
The Individual

The purpose of this research was to determine some of the effects of consonant recognition training on the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired adults. Two groups of ten subjects each received seven hours of either auditory or visual consonant recognition training, in addition to a standard two-week, group-oriented, inpatient aural rehabilitation program. A third group of fifteen subjects received the standard two-week program, but no supplementary individual consonant recognition training. An audiovisual sentence recognition test, as well as tests of auditory and visual consonant recognition, were administered both before and ibltowing training. Subjects in all three groups significantly increased in their audiovisual sentence recognition performance, but subjects receiving the individual consonant recognition training improved significantly more than subjects receiving only the standard two-week program. A significant increase in consonant recognition performance was observed in the two groups receiving the auditory or visual consonant recognition training. The data are discussed from varying statistical and clinical perspectives.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of Hearing Aid Beamforming Microphone Arrays in a Noisy Laboratory Setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Microphone Arrays ◽  
Laboratory Setting ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Sentence Recognition

AbstractPeople with hearing loss experience difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. Beamforming microphone arrays in hearing aids can improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thus also speech recognition and subjective ratings. Unilateral beamformer arrays, also known as directional microphones, accomplish this improvement using two microphones in one hearing aid. Bilateral beamformer arrays, which combine information across four microphones in a bilateral fitting, further improve the SNR. Early bilateral beamformers were static with fixed attenuation patterns. Recently adaptive, bilateral beamformers have been introduced in commercial hearing aids.The purpose of this article was to evaluate the potential benefits of adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers for improving sentence recognition and subjective ratings in a laboratory setting. A secondary purpose was to identify potential participant factors that explain some of the variability in beamformer benefit.Participants were fitted with study hearing aids equipped with commercially available adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers. Participants completed sentence recognition testing in background noise using three hearing aid settings (omnidirectional, unilateral beamformer, bilateral beamformer) and two noise source configurations (surround, side). After each condition, participants made subjective ratings of their perceived work, desire to control the situation, willingness to give up, and tiredness.Eighteen adults (50–80 yr, M = 66.2, σ = 8.6) with symmetrical mild sloping to severe hearing loss participated.Sentence recognition scores and subjective ratings were analyzed separately using generalized linear models with two within-subject factors (hearing aid microphone and noise configuration). Two benefit scores were calculated: (1) unilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with omnidirectional) and (2) additional bilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with unilateral beamformer). Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to determine if beamformer benefit was associated with participant factors (age, degree of hearing loss, unaided speech in noise ability, spatial release from masking, and performance in omnidirectional).Sentence recognition and subjective ratings of work, control, and tiredness were better with both types of beamformers relative to the omnidirectional conditions. In addition, the bilateral beamformer offered small additional improvements relative to the unilateral beamformer in terms of sentence recognition and subjective ratings of tiredness. Speech recognition performance and subjective ratings were generally independent of noise configuration. Performance in the omnidirectional setting and pure-tone average were independently related to unilateral beamformer benefits. Those with the lowest performance or the largest degree of hearing loss benefited the most. No factors were significantly related to additional bilateral beamformer benefit.Adaptive bilateral beamformers offer additional advantages over adaptive unilateral beamformers in hearing aids. The small additional advantages with the adaptive beamformer are comparable to those reported in the literature with static beamformers. Although the additional benefits are small, they positively affected subjective ratings of tiredness. These data suggest that adaptive bilateral beamformers have the potential to improve listening in difficult situations for hearing aid users. In addition, patients who struggle the most without beamforming microphones may also benefit the most from the technology.

Evaluation of Auditory Functions for Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (06) ◽  
pp. 313-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Véronique Vaillancourt ◽  
Chantal Laroche ◽  
Christian Giguère ◽  
Marc-André Beaulieu ◽  
Jean-Pierre Legault
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Royal Canadian Mounted Police ◽  
Fitness For Duty ◽  
Threshold Data

Background: Auditory fitness for duty (AFFD) testing is an important element in an assessment of workers’ ability to perform job tasks safely and effectively. Functional hearing is particularly critical to job performance in law enforcement. Most often, assessment is based on pure-tone detection thresholds; however, its validity can be questioned and challenged in court. In an attempt to move beyond the pure-tone audiogram, some organizations like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are incorporating additional testing to supplement audiometric data in their AFFD protocols, such as measurements of speech recognition in quiet and/or in noise, and sound localization. Purpose: This article reports on the assessment of RCMP officers wearing hearing aids in speech recognition and sound localization tasks. The purpose was to quantify individual performance in different domains of hearing identified as necessary components of fitness for duty, and to document the type of hearing aids prescribed in the field and their benefit for functional hearing. The data are to help RCMP in making more informed decisions regarding AFFD in officers wearing hearing aids. Research Design: The proposed new AFFD protocol included unaided and aided measures of speech recognition in quiet and in noise using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and sound localization in the left/right (L/R) and front/back (F/B) horizontal planes. Sixty-four officers were identified and selected by the RCMP to take part in this study on the basis of hearing thresholds exceeding current audiometrically based criteria. This article reports the results of 57 officers wearing hearing aids. Results: Based on individual results, 49% of officers were reclassified from nonoperational status to operational with limitations on fine hearing duties, given their unaided and/or aided performance. Group data revealed that hearing aids (1) improved speech recognition thresholds on the HINT, the effects being most prominent in Quiet and in conditions of spatial separation between target and noise (Noise Right and Noise Left) and least considerable in Noise Front; (2) neither significantly improved nor impeded L/R localization; and (3) substantially increased F/B errors in localization in a number of cases. Additional analyses also pointed to the poor ability of threshold data to predict functional abilities for speech in noise (r2 = 0.26 to 0.33) and sound localization (r2 = 0.03 to 0.28). Only speech in quiet (r2 = 0.68 to 0.85) is predicted adequately from threshold data. Conclusions: Combined with previous findings, results indicate that the use of hearing aids can considerably affect F/B localization abilities in a number of individuals. Moreover, speech understanding in noise and sound localization abilities were poorly predicted from pure-tone thresholds, demonstrating the need to specifically test these abilities, both unaided and aided, when assessing AFFD. Finally, further work is needed to develop empirically based hearing criteria for the RCMP and identify best practices in hearing aid fittings for optimal functional hearing abilities.

A Comparison of Personal Sound Amplification Products and Hearing Aids in Ecologically Relevant Test Environments

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Brody ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech Intelligibility Index ◽  
Sound Amplification

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the benefit of self-adjusted personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) to audiologist-fitted hearing aids based on speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality in ecologically relevant test conditions to estimate real-world effectiveness. Method Twenty-five older adults with bilateral mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed the single-blinded, crossover study. Participants underwent aided testing using 3 PSAPs and a traditional hearing aid, as well as unaided testing. PSAPs were adjusted based on participant preference, whereas the hearing aid was configured using best-practice verification protocols. Audibility provided by the devices was quantified using the Speech Intelligibility Index (American National Standards Institute, 2012). Outcome measures assessing speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality were administered in ecologically relevant laboratory conditions designed to represent real-world speech listening situations. Results All devices significantly improved Speech Intelligibility Index compared to unaided listening, with the hearing aid providing more audibility than all PSAPs. Results further revealed that, in general, the hearing aid improved speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort significantly more than all PSAPs. Few differences in sound quality were observed between devices. All PSAPs improved speech recognition and listening effort compared to unaided testing. Conclusions Hearing aids fitted using best-practice verification protocols were capable of providing more aided audibility, better speech recognition performance, and lower listening effort compared to the PSAPs tested in the current study. Differences in sound quality between the devices were minimal. However, because all PSAPs tested in the study significantly improved participants' speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort compared to unaided listening, PSAPs could serve as a budget-friendly option for those who cannot afford traditional amplification.

An Evaluation of Several Rationales for Selecting Hearing Aid Gain

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Selection Procedures ◽  
Relative Gain ◽  
Typical Range ◽  
Selection Of

The present study evaluates the rationales underlying several hearing aid selection procedures. The first portion of the evaluation confirms that the gain-selection rationales result in the selection of different hearing aids for a given patient. Nine different audiometric configurations representing varying degrees of fiat, sloping, and rising sensorineural hearing loss were considered. The second phase of the evaluation considered how well each procedure achieved the goal of maximizing speech recognition. This analysis made use of the Articulation Index and was applied to each of the nine audiometric configurations. The results of this analysis suggested that, given the ability to adjust the overall gain over a typical range available through most volume controls, any of the procedures could produce optimal aided speech recognition performance. The final portion of the evaluation examined the ability of each procedure to prescribe absolute gain and relative gain (frequency response) that corresponded to that preferred by hearing aid wearers. The data for preferred insertion gain came from a recent investigation by Leijon, Eriksson-Mangold, an d Beck-Karlsen (1984). The results of this evaluation suggested that some procedures prescribe gain values closer to those preferred by listeners than others. More data are needed on preferred gain values for a variety of configurations, however, before any one procedure can be recommended over another.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document