Unintelligible Low-Frequency Sound Enhances Simulated Cochlear-Implant Speech Recognition in Noise

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 2598-2601 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.E. Chang ◽  
J.Y. Bai ◽  
Fan-Gang Zeng
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Frequency Sound ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Evaluation of Automatic Directional Processing with Cochlear Implant Recipients

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (08) ◽  
pp. 478-486
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Soo Jang ◽  
Cory L. Hillis
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Mixed Model Analysis ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Abstract Background For cochlear implant (CI) recipients, speech recognition in noise is consistently poorer compared with recognition in quiet. Directional processing improves performance in noise and can be automatically activated based on acoustic scene analysis. The use of adaptive directionality with CI recipients is new and has not been investigated thoroughly, especially utilizing the recipients' preferred everyday signal processing, dynamic range, and/or noise reduction. Purpose This study utilized CI recipients' preferred everyday signal processing to evaluate four directional microphone options in a noisy environment to determine which option provides the best speech recognition in noise. A greater understanding of automatic directionality could ultimately improve CI recipients' speech-in-noise performance and better guide clinicians in programming. Study Sample Twenty-six unilateral and seven bilateral CI recipients with a mean age of 66 years and approximately 4 years of CI experience were included. Data Collection and Analysis Speech-in-noise performance was measured using eight loudspeakers in a 360-degree array with HINT sentences presented in restaurant noise. Four directional options were evaluated (automatic [SCAN], adaptive [Beam], fixed [Zoom], and Omni-directional) with participants' everyday use signal processing options active. A mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparisons were performed. Results Automatic directionality (SCAN) resulted in the best speech-in-noise performance, although not significantly better than Beam. Omni-directional performance was significantly poorer compared with the three other directional options. A varied number of participants performed their best with each of the four-directional options, with 16 performing best with automatic directionality. The majority of participants did not perform best with their everyday directional option. Conclusion The individual variability seen in this study suggests that CI recipients try with different directional options to find their ideal program. However, based on a CI recipient's motivation to try different programs, automatic directionality is an appropriate everyday processing option.

scholarly journals Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual acoustic hearing

2004 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 1729-1735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Turner ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz ◽  
Corina Vidal ◽  
Amy Behrens ◽  
Belinda A. Henry
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Acoustic Hearing ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Use of intonation contours for speech recognition in noise by cochlear implant recipients

2011 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. EL204-EL209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Meister ◽  
Markus Landwehr ◽  
Verena Pyschny ◽  
Linda Grugel ◽  
Martin Walger
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals Speech Recognition in Noise in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Digital Remote Wireless Microphone Technology

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 607-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Wesarg ◽  
Susan Arndt ◽  
Konstantin Wiebe ◽  
Frauke Schmid ◽  
Annika Huber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Pairwise Comparison ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Wireless Microphone ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

AbstractPrevious research in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss showed improvements in speech recognition in noise using remote wireless microphone systems. However, to our knowledge, no previous studies have addressed the benefit of these systems in CI recipients with single-sided deafness.The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential improvement in speech recognition in noise for distant speakers in single-sided deaf (SSD) CI recipients obtained using the digital remote wireless microphone system, Roger. In addition, we evaluated the potential benefit in normal hearing (NH) participants gained by applying this system.Speech recognition in noise for a distant speaker in different conditions with and without Roger was evaluated with a two-way repeated-measures design in each group, SSD CI recipients, and NH participants. Post hoc analyses were conducted using pairwise comparison t-tests with Bonferroni correction.Eleven adult SSD participants aided with CIs and eleven adult NH participants were included in this study.All participants were assessed in 15 test conditions (5 listening conditions × 3 noise levels) each. The listening conditions for SSD CI recipients included the following: (I) only NH ear and CI turned off, (II) NH ear and CI (turned on), (III) NH ear and CI with Roger 14, (IV) NH ear with Roger Focus and CI, and (V) NH ear with Roger Focus and CI with Roger 14. For the NH participants, five corresponding listening conditions were chosen: (I) only better ear and weaker ear masked, (II) both ears, (III) better ear and weaker ear with Roger Focus, (IV) better ear with Roger Focus and weaker ear, and (V) both ears with Roger Focus. The speech level was fixed at 65 dB(A) at 1 meter from the speech-presenting loudspeaker, yielding a speech level of 56.5 dB(A) at the recipient's head. Noise levels were 55, 65, and 75 dB(A). Digitally altered noise recorded in school classrooms was used as competing noise. Speech recognition was measured in percent correct using the Oldenburg sentence test.In SSD CI recipients, a significant improvement in speech recognition was found for all listening conditions with Roger (III, IV, and V) versus all no-Roger conditions (I and II) at the higher noise levels (65 and 75 dB[A]). NH participants significantly benefited from the application of Roger in noise for higher levels, too. In both groups, no significant difference was detected between any of the different listening conditions at 55 dB(A) competing noise. There was also no significant difference between any of the Roger conditions III, IV, and V across all noise levels.The application of the advanced remote wireless microphone system, Roger, in SSD CI recipients provided significant benefits in speech recognition for distant speakers at higher noise levels. In NH participants, the application of Roger also produced a significant benefit in speech recognition in noise.

scholarly journals Effect of (Mis)Matched Compression Speed on Speech Recognition in Bimodal Listeners

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652094897
Author(s):  
Dimitar Spirrov ◽  
Eugen Kludt ◽  
Eline Verschueren ◽  
Andreas Büchner ◽  
Tom Francart
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Automatic Gain Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Gain Control ◽  
Time Constants ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Testing Condition ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Automatic gain control (AGC) compresses the wide dynamic range of sounds to the narrow dynamic range of hearing-impaired listeners. Setting AGC parameters (time constants and knee points) is an important part of the fitting of hearing devices. These parameters do not only influence overall loudness elicited by the hearing devices but can also affect the recognition of speech in noise. We investigated whether matching knee points and time constants of the AGC between the cochlear implant and the hearing aid of bimodal listeners would improve speech recognition in noise. We recruited 18 bimodal listeners and provided them all with the same cochlear-implant processor and hearing aid. We compared the matched AGCs with the default device settings with mismatched AGCs. As a baseline, we also included a condition with the mismatched AGCs of the participants’ own devices. We tested speech recognition in quiet and in noise presented from different directions. The time constants affected outcomes in the monaural testing condition with the cochlear implant alone. There were no specific binaural performance differences between the two AGC settings. Therefore, the performance was mostly dependent on the monaural cochlear implant alone condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document