scholarly journals Speech Perception in Noise: Directional Microphones versus Frequency Modulation (FM) Systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 426-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jane Enrietto Horn
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Diffuse Noise ◽  
Better Than

The major consequence of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is communicative difficulty, especially with the addition of noise and/or reverberation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare two types of technologies that have been shown to improve the speech-perception performance of individuals with SNHL: directional microphones and frequency modulation (FM) systems. Forty-six adult subjects with slight to severe SNHL served as subjects. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) with correlated diffuse noise under five different listening conditions. Results revealed that speech perception was significantly better with the use of the FM system over that of any of the hearing aid conditions, even with the use of the directional microphone. Additionally, speech perception was significantly better with the use of two hearing aids used in conjunction with two FM receivers rather than with just one FM receiver. Directional microphone performance was significantly better than omnidirectional microphone performance. All aided listening conditions were significantly better than the unaided listening condition.

Effects of Frequency Modulation (FM) Transmitter Microphone Directivity on Speech Perception in Noise

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Nicole V. Kreisman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Wide Angle ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Noise Test

Frequency modulation (FM) technology can significantly improve the speech perception ability of individuals with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in background noise. Previous investigations have demonstrated that the microphone design of the FM transmitter can have a significant impact on this improved speech perception. The purpose of this investigation was to compare 3 types of FM transmitter microphone designs: (a) wide angle (omnidirectional microphone), which amplifies sounds coming from all directions around the microphone equally; (b) zoom (1 directional microphone), which provides less amplification to signals coming from the rear, and (c) superzoom (2 directional microphones), which provides less amplification to signals originating from the rear and the sides. Fifteen adults with bilateral slight to moderately severe SNHL participated. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994). Speech spectrum shaped noise served as the noise competition. Results revealed that the best speech perception in noise was obtained when the FM transmitter was used in the zoom setting. The poorest performance was obtained when the FM transmitter was in the wide-angle mode. The clinical implications of these results are discussed.

Quantification of Directional Benefit across Different Polar Response Patterns

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (09) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Jessica L.M. Egge ◽  
Jill L. Tubbs ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner ◽  
Gregory A. Flamme
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the directivity of a directional microphone hearing aid and listener performance. Hearing aids were fit bilaterally to 19 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss, and five microphone conditions were assessed: omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid, and "monofit," wherein the left hearing aid was set to omnidirectional and the right hearing aid to hypercardioid. Speech perception performance was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Connected Speech Test (CST). Subjects also assessed eight domains of sound quality for three stimuli (speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music). A diffuse soundfield system composed of eight loudspeakers forming the corners of a cube was used to output the background noise for the speech perception tasks and the three stimuli used for sound quality judgments. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the HINT or CST performance, or sound quality judgments, across the four directional microphone conditions when tested in a diffuse field. Of particular interest was the monofit condition: Performance on speech perception tests was the same whether one or two directional microphones were used.

Improving Speech Intelligibility in Background Noise with an Adaptive Directional Microphone

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (07) ◽  
pp. 519-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Blamey ◽  
Hayley J. Fiket ◽  
Brenton R. Steele
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

Omnidirectional, supercardioid, and adaptive directional microphones (ADM) were evaluated in combination with the ADRO® amplification scheme for eight participants with moderate sloping hearing losses. The ADM produced better speech perception scores than the other two microphones in all noise conditions. Participants performed the Hearing in Noise Test sentences at -4.5 dB SNR or better, which is similar to the level achievable with normal hearing. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale indicated no disadvantages of using the ADM relative to the omnidirectional microphone in real-life situations. The ADM was preferred over the omnidirectional microphone in 54% of situations, compared to 17% preferences for the omnidirectional microphone, and 29% no preference. The combination of the ADM to improve SNR, and ADRO® to keep the signal output comfortable and audible provided near-normal hearing performance for people with moderate hearing loss. The ADM is the recommended microphone configuration for ADRO hearing aids.

scholarly journals Speech Perception in Children Under Noisy Situations

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (02) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
Natália Fernanda Garro Monteiro ◽  
Samira Vilela Molina ◽  
Maria Cecília Bevilacqua ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
Adriane Lima Mortari Moret ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Transverse Section ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Result Interpretation ◽  
Cognitive Alterations ◽  
Diffuse Noise

Summary Introduction: The ability to understand speech is impaired by many factors during evaluations, especially under noise, and it is still more complex for children under these conditions. Objective: To analyze the speech perception in children with a normal hearing in different noise situations. Method: Way of study transverse section. The Brazilian Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) was performed in 21 children aged between 7 and 14 with a standard hearing and no cognitive alterations. The sentence lists were randomly used in these situations: silence (S), frontal noise (FN); right-side noise (RN); left-side noise (LN); noise at 180°. (RT) and a comparison between the result of the compound noise (CN) and the diffuse noise in four sound areas at 45°; 135°; 225° e 315° (4 BXS). Results: The statistical analysis showed a significant difference among the following situations: RN with FN; BN with FN; and it was worse with 4 BXS, where a difference for RN, BN, CN, LN and FN was found. To analyze a correlation with age, it was significant regarding the age, as a result of HINT values only for the frontal noise. Conclusion: The significant differences in the results of speech perception among the different hearing conditions in the evaluated individuals suggest carefulness when choosing the stimulus in evaluations of speech perception in the noise in hearing-impaired children. Accordingly, researches in this field are necessary to determine the standards and variations related to its application and result interpretation.

Performance of Directional Microphones for Hearing Aids: Real-World versus Simulation

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 440-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia L. Compton-Conley ◽  
Arlene C. Neuman ◽  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Harry Levitt
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Noise Source ◽  
Live Performance ◽  
Space Condition ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Absolute

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of clinical and laboratory measures of directional microphone benefit. Three methods of simulating a noisy restaurant listening situation ([1] a multimicrophone/multiloudspeaker simulation, the R-SPACE™, [2] a single noise source behind the listener, and [3] a single noise source above the listener) were evaluated and compared to the "live" condition. Performance with three directional microphone systems differing in polar pattern (omnidirectional, supercardioid, and hypercardioid array) and directivity indices (0.34, 4.20, and 7.71) was assessed using a modified version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). The evaluation revealed that the three microphones could be ordered with regard to the benefit obtained using any of the simulation techniques. However, the absolute performance obtained with each microphone type differed among simulations. Only the R-SPACE simulation yielded accurate estimates of the absolute performance of all three microphones in the live condition. Performance in the R-SPACE condition was not significantly different from performance in the "live restaurant" condition. Neither of the single noise source simulations provided accurate predictions of real-world (live) performance for all three microphones.

scholarly journals A Comparison Between the Korean Digits-in-Noise Test and the Korean Speech Perception-in-Noise Test in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
Subin Kim ◽  
Sungwha You ◽  
Myoung Eun Sohn ◽  
Woojae Han ◽  
Jae-Hyun Seo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Diagnostic Efficacy ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Masker ◽  
Noise Test

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to validate the performance and diagnostic efficacy of the Korean digits-in-noise (K-DIN) test in comparison to the Korean speech perception-in-noise (K-SPIN) test, which is the representative speech-in-noise test in clinical practice.Subjects and Methods: Twenty-seven subjects (15 normal-hearing and 12 hearing-impaired listeners) participated. The recorded Korean 0-9 digits were used to form quasirandom digit triplets; 50 target digit triplets were presented at the most comfortable level of each subject while presenting speech-shaped background noise at various levels of signal-to-noise ratios (-12.5, -10, -5, or +5 dB). Subjects were then instructed to listen to both target and noise masker unilaterally and bilaterally through a headphone. K-SPIN test was also conducted using the same procedure as the K-DIN. After calculating their percent correct responses, K-DIN and K-SPIN results were compared using a Pearson-correlation test.Results: Results showed a statistically significant correlation between K-DIN and K-SPIN in all hearing conditions (left: r=0.814, p<0.001; right: r=0.788, p<0.001; bilateral: r=0.727, p<0.001). Moreover, the K-DIN test achieved better testing efficacy, shorter average listening time (5 min vs. 30 min), and easier performance of task according to participants’ qualitative reports than the K-SPIN test.Conclusions: In this study, the Korean version of digit triplet test was validated in both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The findings suggest that the K-DIN test can be used as a simple and time-efficient hearing-in-noise test in audiology clinics in Korea.

scholarly journals Effect of Type of Noise and Loudspeaker Array on the Performance of Omnidirectional and Directional Microphones

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (06) ◽  
pp. 398-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Valente ◽  
Karen M. Mispagel ◽  
Juergen Tchorz ◽  
David Fabry
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
The Past ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Array Performance ◽  
Better Than

Differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were evaluated between two loudspeaker conditions (single loudspeaker at 180°; diffuse using eight loudspeakers set 45° apart) and two types of noise (steady-state HINT noise; R-Space™ restaurant noise). Twenty-five participants were fit bilaterally with Phonak Perseo hearing aids using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the parameters were fine-tuned based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were assessed using HINT sentences presented at 0° with the two types of background noise held constant at 65 dBA and under the two loudspeaker conditions.Results revealed significant differences in Reception Thresholds for Sentences (RTS in dB) where directional performance was significantly better than omnidirectional. Performance in the 180° condition was significantly better than the diffuse condition, and performance was significantly better using the HINT noise in comparison to the R-Space restaurant noise. In addition, results revealed that within each loudspeaker array, performance was significantly better for the directional microphone. Looking across loudspeaker arrays, however, significant differences were not present in omnidirectional performance, but directional performance was significantly better in the 180° condition when compared to the diffuse condition. These findings are discussed in terms of results reported in the past and counseling patients on the potential advantages of directional microphones as the listening situation and type of noise changes.

Evaluation of a Second-Order Directional Microphone Hearing Aid: I. Speech Perception Outcomes

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Bentler ◽  
Catherine Palmer ◽  
Gustav H. Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Noise Environment ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Nonlinear Version ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones

This clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the benefit obtained from hearing aids employing second-order adaptive directional microphone technology, used in conjunction with digital noise reduction. Data were collected for 49 subjects across two sites. New and experienced hearing aid users were fit bilaterally with behind-the-ear hearing aids using the National Acoustics Laboratory—Nonlinear version 1 (NAL-NL1) prescriptive method with manufacturer default settings for various parameters of signal processing (e.g., noise reduction, compression, etc.). Laboratory results indicated that (1) for the stationary noise environment, directional microphones provided better speech perception than omnidirectional microphones, regardless of the number of microphones; and (2) for the moving noise environment, the three-microphone option (whether in adaptive or fixed mode) and the two-microphone option in its adaptive mode resulted in better performance than the two-microphone fixed mode, or the omnidirectional modes.

The Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN) in a Multiple Signal-to-Noise Ratio Paradigm

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 590-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Rachel McArdle ◽  
Kelly L. Watts ◽  
Sherri L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Better Than

Background: The Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN; Bilger, 1984b) is composed of 200 target words distributed as the last words in 200 low-predictability (LP) and 200 high-predictability (HP) sentences. Four list pairs, each consisting of two 50-sentence lists, were constructed with the target word in a LP and HP sentence. Traditionally the R-SPIN is presented at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, S/N) of 8 dB with the listener task to repeat the last word in the sentence. Purpose: The purpose was to determine the practicality of altering the R-SPIN format from a single SNR paradigm into a multiple SNR paradigm from which the 50% points for the HP and LP sentences can be calculated. Research Design: Three repeated measures experiments were conducted. Study Sample: Forty listeners with normal hearing and 184 older listeners with pure-tone hearing loss participated in the sequence of experiments. Data Collection and Analysis: The R-SPIN sentences were edited digitally (1) to maintain the temporal relation between the sentences and babble, (2) to establish the SNRs, and (3) to mix the speech and noise signals to obtain SNRs between –1 and 23 dB. All materials were recorded on CD and were presented through an earphone with the responses recorded and analyzed at the token level. For reference purposes the Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was included in the first experiment. Results: In Experiment 1, recognition performances by listeners with normal hearing were better than performances by listeners with hearing loss. For both groups, performances on the HP materials were better than performances on the LP materials. Performances on the LP materials and on the WIN were similar. Performances at 8 dB S/N were the same with the traditional fixed level presentation and the descending presentation level paradigms. The results from Experiment 2 demonstrated that the four list pairs of R-SPIN materials produced good first approximation psychometric functions over the –4 to 23 dB S/N range, but there were irregularities. The data from Experiment 2 were used in Experiment 3 to guide the selection of the words to be used at the various SNRs that would provide homogeneous performances at each SNR and would produce systematic psychometric functions. In Experiment 3, the 50% points were in good agreement for the LP and HP conditions within both groups of listeners. The psychometric functions for List Pairs 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 had similar characteristics and maintained reasonable separations between the HP and LP functions, whereas the HP and LP functions for List Pair 7 and 8 bisected one another at the lower SNRs. Conclusions: This study indicates that the R-SPIN can be configured into a multiple SNR paradigm. A more in-depth study with the R-SPIN materials is needed to develop lists that are systematic and reasonably equivalent for use on listeners with hearing loss. The approach should be based on the psychometric characteristics of the 200 HP and 200 LP sentences with the current R-SPIN lists discarded. Of importance is maintaining the synchrony between the sentences and their accompanying babble.

Can Behavioral Speech-In-Noise Tests Improve the Quality of Hearing Aid Fittings?

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Robert Moore ◽  
Susan Gordon-Hickey
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Test

The purpose of this article is to propose 4 dimensions for consideration in hearing aid fittings and 4 tests to evaluate those dimensions. The 4 dimensions and tests are (a) working memory, evaluated by the Revised Speech Perception in Noise test (Bilger, Nuetzel, & Rabinowitz, 1984); (b) performance in noise, evaluated by the Quick Speech in Noise test (QSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004); (c) acceptance of noise, evaluated by the Acceptable Noise Level test (ANL; Nabelek, Tucker, & Letowski, 1991); and (d) performance versus perception, evaluated by the Perceptual–Performance test (PPT; Saunders & Cienkowski, 2002). The authors discuss the 4 dimensions and tests in the context of improving the quality of hearing aid fittings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document