Effects of Training on the Use of a Manual Microphone Shutoff on a BiCROS Device

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (05) ◽  
pp. 478-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Eric Seper ◽  
Chi Lau ◽  
Bryan Crose ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Final Visit ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Study Participants

Background: Bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BiCROS) hearing aids function to restore audibility of sounds originating from the side of the unaidable ear. However, when speech is presented to the side of the aidable ear and noise to the side of the unaidable ear, a BiCROS arrangement may reduce intelligibility of the speech signal. This negative effect may be circumvented if an on/off switch is available on the contralateral routing of signals (CROS) transmitter. Purpose: This study evaluated if the proper use of the on/off switch on a CROS transmitter could enhance speech recognition in noise and sound localization abilities. The participants’ subjective reactions to the use of the BiCROS, including the use of the on/off switch in real-life were also evaluated. Research Design: A between-subjects, repeated-measures design was used to assess differences in speech recognition (in quiet and in noise) and localization abilities under four hearing aid conditions (unaided, unilaterally aided, fixed BiCROS setting, and adjusted BiCROS setting) with speech and noise stimuli presented from different azimuths. Participants were trained on the use of the on/off switch on the BiCROS transmitter before testing in the adjusted BiCROS settings. Subjective ratings were obtained with the Speech, Spatial, and Sound Quality (SSQ) questionnaire and a custom questionnaire. Study Sample: Nine adult BiCROS candidates participated in this study. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants wore the Widex Dream-m-CB hearing aid on the aidable ear for 1 week. They then wore the BiCROS for the remainder of the study. Speech recognition and localization testing were completed in four hearing aid conditions (unaided, unilateral aided, fixed BiCROS, and adjusted BiCROS). Speech recognition was evaluated during the first three visits, whereas localization was evaluated over the course of the study. Participants completed the SSQ questionnaire before each visit. The CROS questionnaire was completed at the final visit. A repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc analysis was used to evaluate the significance of the results on speech recognition, localization, and the SSQ. Results: The results revealed that the adjusted BiCROS condition improved speech recognition scores by 20 rau (rationalized arcsine unit) when speech was presented to the aidable ear and localization by 37% when sounds are presented from the side of the unaidable ear over the fixed BiCROS condition. Statistically significant benefit on the SSQ was also noted with the adjusted BiCROS condition compared to the unilateral fitting. Conclusions: These findings supported the value of an on/off switch on a CROS transmitter because it allows convenient selective transmission of sounds. It also highlighted the importance of instructions and practice in using the BiCROS hearing aid successfully.

The Benefit of Remote Microphones Using Four Wireless Protocols

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (08) ◽  
pp. 724-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna S. Rodemerk ◽  
Jason A. Galster
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Wireless Transmission ◽  
Transmission Protocol ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Audio Transmission ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Many studies have reported the speech recognition benefits of a personal remote microphone system when used by adult listeners with hearing loss. The advance of wireless technology has allowed for many wireless audio transmission protocols. Some of these protocols interface with commercially available hearing aids. As a result, commercial remote microphone systems use a variety of different protocols for wireless audio transmission. It is not known how these systems compare, with regard to adult speech recognition in noise. Purpose: The primary goal of this investigation was to determine the speech recognition benefits of four different commercially available remote microphone systems, each with a different wireless audio transmission protocol. Research Design: A repeated-measures design was used in this study. Study Sample: Sixteen adults, ages 52 to 81 yr, with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. Intervention: Participants were fit with three different sets of bilateral hearing aids and four commercially available remote microphone systems (FM, 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and Bluetooth® paired with near-field magnetic induction). Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition scores were measured by an adaptive version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). The participants were seated both 6 and 12′ away from the talker loudspeaker. Participants repeated HINT sentences with and without hearing aids and with four commercially available remote microphone systems in both seated positions with and without contributions from the hearing aid or environmental microphone (24 total conditions). The HINT SNR-50, or the signal-to-noise ratio required for correct repetition of 50% of the sentences, was recorded for all conditions. A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine statistical significance of microphone condition. Results: The results of this study revealed that use of the remote microphone systems statistically improved speech recognition in noise relative to unaided and hearing aid-only conditions across all four wireless transmission protocols at 6 and 12′ away from the talker. Conclusions: Participants showed a significant improvement in speech recognition in noise when comparing four remote microphone systems with different wireless transmission methods to hearing aids alone.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Evaluation of a Wind Noise Attenuation Algorithm on Subjective Annoyance and Speech-in-Wind Performance

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (01) ◽  
pp. 046-057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petri Korhonen ◽  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Eric Seper ◽  
Martin Mørkebjerg ◽  
Majken Roikjer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Subjective Rating ◽  
Noise Attenuation ◽  
Wind Noise ◽  
Wind Speeds ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Phoneme Identification

AbstractWind noise is a common problem reported by hearing aid wearers. The MarkeTrak VIII reported that 42% of hearing aid wearers are not satisfied with the performance of their hearing aids in situations where wind is present.The current study investigated the effect of a new wind noise attenuation (WNA) algorithm on subjective annoyance and speech recognition in the presence of wind.A single-blinded, repeated measures design was used.Fifteen experienced hearing aid wearers with bilaterally symmetrical (≤10 dB) mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.Subjective rating for wind noise annoyance was measured for wind presented alone from 0° and 290° at wind speeds of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 m/sec. Phoneme identification performance was measured using Widex Office of Clinical Amplification Nonsense Syllable Test presented at 60, 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL from 270° in the presence of wind originating from 0° at a speed of 5 m/sec.The subjective annoyance from wind noise was reduced for wind originating from 0° at wind speeds from 4 to 7 m/sec. The largest improvement in phoneme identification with the WNA algorithm was 48.2% when speech was presented from 270° at 65 dB SPL and the wind originated from 0° azimuth at 5 m/sec.The WNA algorithm used in this study reduced subjective annoyance for wind speeds ranging from 4 to 7 m/sec. The algorithm was effective in improving speech identification in the presence of wind originating from 0° at 5 m/sec. These results suggest that the WNA algorithm used in the current study could expand the range of real-life situations where a hearing-impaired person can use the hearing aid optimally.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of the Directional Microphone in the ®Baha® Divino™

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (08) ◽  
pp. 546-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jessica Kerckhoff
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Great Difficulty ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) experience great difficulty listening to speech in noisy environments. A directional microphone (DM) could potentially improve speech recognition in this difficult listening environment. It is well known that DMs in behind-the-ear (BTE) and custom hearing aids can provide a greater signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in comparison to an omnidirectional microphone (OM) to improve speech recognition in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Studies examining the DM in bone anchored auditory osseointegrated implants (Baha), however, have been mixed, with little to no benefit reported for the DM compared to an OM. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the mean reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) in noise between the OM and DM in the Baha® Divino™. The RTS of these two microphone modes was measured utilizing two loudspeaker arrays (speech from 0° and noise from 180° or a diffuse eight-loudspeaker array) and with the better ear open or closed with an earmold impression and noise attenuating earmuff. Subjective benefit was assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) to compare unaided and aided (Divino OM and DM combined) problem scores. Research Design: A repeated measures design was utilized, with each subject counterbalanced to each of the eight treatment levels for three independent variables: (1) microphone (OM and DM), (2) loudspeaker array (180° and diffuse), and (3) better ear (open and closed). Study Sample: Sixteen subjects with USNHL currently utilizing the Baha were recruited from Washington University's Center for Advanced Medicine and the surrounding area. Data Collection and Analysis: Subjects were tested at the initial visit if they entered the study wearing the Divino or after at least four weeks of acclimatization to a loaner Divino. The RTS was determined utilizing Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in the R-Space™ system, and subjective benefit was determined utilizing the APHAB. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired samples t-test were utilized to analyze results of the HINT and APHAB, respectively. Results: Results revealed statistically significant differences within microphone (p < 0.001; directional advantage of 3.2 dB), loudspeaker array (p = 0.046; 180° advantage of 1.1 dB), and better ear conditions (p < 0.001; open ear advantage of 4.9 dB). Results from the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit for the Divino relative to unaided on the subscales of Ease of Communication (EC) (p = 0.037), Background Noise (BN) (p < 0.001), and Reverberation (RV) (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The Divino's DM provides a statistically significant improvement in speech recognition in noise compared to the OM for subjects with USNHL. Therefore, it is recommended that audiologists consider selecting a Baha with a DM to provide improved speech recognition performance in noisy listening environments.

scholarly journals Benefits in Speech Recognition in Noise with Remote Wireless Microphones in Group Settings

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (06) ◽  
pp. 404-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M. Thibodeau
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Wireless Microphone ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Abstract Background Although hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) can provide significant benefits to persons with hearing loss, users frequently report difficulty hearing in noisy environments, particularly when there are multiple talkers. Little is known about the benefits provided by currently available wireless microphones in multitalker situations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits received in speech recognition in noise by adults with hearing loss when using two different wireless microphone types in a simulated group setting. Research Design A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used where performance in a control condition, HA/CI alone, was compared with performance in two wireless microphone intervention conditions. Study Sample Participants included ten listeners, aged 20-92 years, with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were experienced HA or CI users. Intervention The two wireless microphones by Phonak, Roger Pen, and Roger Select used the same digital modulation protocol to transmit the signal to compatible receivers. However, the Roger Pen operated in a fixed omnidirectional mode, whereas the Roger Select operated in an adaptive directional mode. Data Collection and Analysis Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented in restaurant noise in three conditions: HA/CI alone, HA/CI with a Roger Pen, or HA/CI with a Roger Select microphone placed in the center of a round table. Sentences were presented from one of five loudspeakers equally spaced with the participant, while restaurant noise was presented on each side at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), including +5, 0, −5, and −10 dB. A two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed with main effects of listening condition and noise level. Results Significantly  greater speech recognition performance was achieved with the wireless microphones than with listening with just the HA or CI. Furthermore, at the −5- and −10-dB SNR conditions, the Roger Select resulted in significantly better performance than the Roger Pen microphone. Conclusions The results suggest that the Roger Select microphone can provide significant benefits in speech recognition in noise over the use of HA/CI alone (61%) and also significant benefits over the use of a Roger Pen (16%) in a simulated group dining experience.

A Proposed Electroacoustic Test Protocol for Personal FM Receivers Coupled to Cochlear Implant Sound Processors

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 941-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Elizabeth Musgrave ◽  
Sadaf Momin ◽  
Carl Sandrock ◽  
Denise Romine
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Behavioral Testing ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Specialized Equipment ◽  
Acoustic Output ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: Current fitting guidelines from the American Academy of Audiology (Academy) support the use of objective electroacoustic measures and behavioral testing when fitting frequency modulation (FM) systems to hearing aids. However, only behavioral testing is recommended when fitting FM systems to individuals with cochlear implants (CIs) because a protocol for conducting electroacoustic measures has yet to be developed for this population. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to propose and examine the validity of a newly developed, objective, electroacoustic test protocol for fitting electrically and electromagnetically coupled FM systems to CI sound processors. Research Design: Electroacoustic measures were conducted and replicated in the laboratory with three contemporary CI sound processors and several FM system combinations. A repeated measures design was used with four participants to examine the validity of the proposed electroacoustic test protocol. Study Sample: Three contemporary CI sound processors were tested electroacoustically in the laboratory while coupled to combinations of five FM receivers and four FM transmitters. Two adolescents using Cochlear Nucleus 5 sound processors and two adult participants using MED-EL OPUS 2 sound processors completed behavioral and subjective measures. Data Collection and Analysis: Using current hearing aid practice guidelines from the Academy, electroacoustic measurements were conducted in the laboratory with the CIs and FM systems to determine transparency, where equivalent inputs to the CI and FM microphones result in equivalent outputs. Using a hearing aid analyzer, acoustic output from the CI sound processor was measured via monitor earphones and specialized equipment from CI manufacturers with 65 dB SPL speech inputs (1) to the sound processor and (2) to the FM transmitter microphones. The FM gain or volume was adjusted to attempt to achieve transparency for outputs from the two input devices. The four participants completed some or all of the following measures: speech recognition in noise without and with two FM systems in a classroom, loudness ratings without and with two FM systems measures in a quiet condition in a classroom, and questionnaires. Results: Transparency was achieved for most CI and FM combinations, but most systems required adjustments to FM gain or volume relative to the manufacturer default setting. Despite adjustments to the systems, transparency was not attainable for some FM receiver and transmitter combinations. Behavioral testing in four participants provided preliminary support to the proposed electroacoustic test protocol. Conclusions: Valid and reliable electroacoustic test measures may be feasible with CIs coupled to FM systems with specialized equipment from the CI manufacturer. Advances in equipment available for electroacoustic testing with these devices as well as additional research will lend further support to this objective approach to fitting FM systems to CIs.

Evaluation of Speech Recognition in Noise with Cochlear Implants and Dynamic FM

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (07) ◽  
pp. 409-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Benjamin Heldner ◽  
Hans Mülder ◽  
Emily Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Use of personal frequency-modulated (FM) systems significantly improves speech recognition in noise for users of cochlear implants (CIs). Previous studies have shown that the most appropriate gain setting on the FM receiver may vary based on the listening situation and the manufacturer of the CI system. Unlike traditional FM systems with fixed-gain settings, Dynamic FM automatically varies the gain of the FM receiver with changes in the ambient noise level. There are no published reports describing the benefits of Dynamic FM use for CI recipients or how Dynamic FM performance varies as a function of CI manufacturer. Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition of Advanced Bionics Corporation or Cochlear Corporation CI recipients using Dynamic FM vs. a traditional FM system and to examine the effects of Autosensitivity on the FM performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients. Research Design: A two-group repeated-measures design. Participants were assigned to a group according to their type of CI. Study Sample: Twenty-five subjects, ranging in age from 8 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria for one or more of the experiments. Thirteen subjects used Advanced Bionics Corporation, and 12 used Cochlear Corporation implants. Intervention: Speech recognition was assessed while subjects used traditional, fixed-gain FM systems and Dynamic FM systems. Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiments 1 and 2, speech recognition was evaluated with a traditional, fixed-gain FM system and a Dynamic FM system using the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and in classroom noise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects of CI manufacturer (Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation), type of FM system (traditional and dynamic), noise level, and use of Autosensitivity for users of Cochlear Corporation implants. Experiment 3 determined the effects of Autosensitivity on speech recognition of Cochlear Corporation implant recipients when listening through the speech processor microphone with the FM system muted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the effects of signal-to-noise ratio and Autosensitivity. Results: In Experiment 1, use of Dynamic FM resulted in better speech recognition in noise for Advanced Bionics recipients relative to traditional FM at noise levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL. Advanced Bionics recipients obtained better speech recognition in noise with FM use when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients. When Autosensitivity was enabled in Experiment 2, the performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients was equivalent to that of Advanced Bionics recipients, and Dynamic FM was significantly better than traditional FM. Results of Experiment 3 indicate that use of Autosensitivity improves speech recognition in noise of signals directed to the speech processor relative to no Autosensitivity. Conclusions: Dynamic FM should be considered for use with persons with CIs to improve speech recognition in noise. At default CI settings, FM performance is better for Advanced Bionics recipients when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients, but use of Autosensitivity by Cochlear Corporation users results in equivalent group performance.

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

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.

Chosen Listening Levels for Music With and Without the Use of Hearing Aids

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi B. H. Croghan ◽  
Anne M. Swanberg ◽  
Melinda C. Anderson ◽  
Kathryn H. Arehart
Keyword(s):  
Tympanic Membrane ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Rock Music ◽  
Classical Music ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Intersubject Variability ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Recorded Music ◽  
Listening Levels

Purpose The objective of this study was to describe chosen listening levels (CLLs) for recorded music for listeners with hearing loss in aided and unaided conditions. Method The study used a within-subject, repeated-measures design with 13 adult hearing-aid users. The music included rock and classical samples with different amounts of audio-industry compression limiting. CLL measurements were taken at ear level (i.e., at input to the hearing aid) and at the tympanic membrane. Results For aided listening, average CLLs were 69.3 dBA at the input to the hearing aid and 80.3 dBA at the tympanic membrane. For unaided listening, average CLLs were 76.9 dBA at the entrance to the ear canal and 77.1 dBA at the tympanic membrane. Although wide intersubject variability was observed, CLLs were not associated with audiometric thresholds. CLLs for rock music were higher than for classical music at the tympanic membrane, but no differences were observed between genres for ear-level CLLs. The amount of audio-industry compression had no significant effect on CLLs. Conclusion By describing the levels of recorded music chosen by hearing-aid users, this study provides a basis for ecologically valid testing conditions in clinical and laboratory settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document