scholarly journals A Daily Alternating Method for Comparing Different Signal-Processing Strategies in Hearing Aids and in Cochlear Implants

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (05) ◽  
pp. 443-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
Shelley A. Witt ◽  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann E. Perreau
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Clear Advantage ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Listening Experience ◽  
Post Trial

Background: Although we always want to select the best signal-processing strategy for our hearing-aid and cochlear-implant patients, no efficient and valid procedure is available. Comparisons in the office are without listening experience, and short-term take-home trials are likely influenced by the order of strategies tried. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure for comparing signal-processing strategies whereby patients listen with one strategy one day and another strategy the next day. They continue this daily comparison for several weeks. We determined (1) if differences existed between strategies without prior listening experience and (2) if performance differences (or lack there of) obtained at the first listening experience are consistent with performance after two to three months of alternating between strategies on a daily basis (equal listening experience). Research Design: Eight subjects were tested pretrial with a vowel, sentence, and spondee recognition test, a localization task, and a quality rating test. They were required to listen to one of two different signal processing strategies alternating between strategies on a daily basis. After one to three months of listening, subjects returned for follow-up testing. Additionally, subjects were asked to make daily ratings and comments in a diary. Results: Pre-trial (no previous listening experience), a clear trend favoring one strategy was observed in four subjects. Four other subjects showed no clear advantage. Post-trial (after alternating daily between strategies), of the four subjects who showed a clear advantage for one signal processing strategy, only one subject showed that same advantage. One subject ended up with an advantage for the other strategy. Post-trial, of the four subjects who showed no advantage for a particular signal processing strategy, three did show an advantage for one strategy over the other. Conclusion: Patients are willing to alternate between signal processing strategies on a daily basis for up to three months in an attempt to determine their optimal strategy. Although some patients showed superior performance with initial fittings (and some did not), the results of pre-trial comparison did not always persist after having equal listening experience. We recommend this daily alternating listening technique when there is interest in determining optimal performance among different signal processing strategies when fitting hearing aids or cochlear implants.

scholarly journals Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (09) ◽  
pp. 810-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Kirby ◽  
Judy G. Kopun ◽  
Meredith Spratford ◽  
Clairissa M. Mollak ◽  
Marc A. Brennan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
At Home

AbstractSloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds.This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children.Participants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm.Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users.Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.Overall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.These results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.

scholarly journals Studies in Pediatric Hearing Loss at the House Research Institute

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (06) ◽  
pp. 412-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie S. Eisenberg ◽  
Karen C. Johnson ◽  
Amy S. Martinez ◽  
Leslie Visser-Dumont ◽  
Dianne Hammes Ganguly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Developmental Outcomes ◽  
The Other ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Very Young Children ◽  
Pediatric Hearing Loss ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Three clinical research projects are described that are relevant to pediatric hearing loss. The three projects fall into two distinct areas. The first area emphasizes clinical studies that track developmental outcomes in children with hearing loss; one project is specific to cochlear implants and the other to hearing aids. The second area addresses speech perception test development for very young children with hearing loss. Although these two lines of research are treated as separate areas, they begin to merge as new behavioral tests become useful in developing protocols for contemporary studies that address longitudinal follow-up of children with hearing loss.

Comparison of Multichannel Wide Dynamic Range Compression and ChannelFree Processing in Open Canal Hearing Instruments

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 126-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick N. Plyler ◽  
Monika Bertges Reber ◽  
Amanda Kovach ◽  
Elisabeth Galloway ◽  
Elizabeth Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Hearing Instruments

Background: Multichannel wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) and ChannelFree processing have similar goals yet differ significantly in terms of signal processing. Multichannel WDRC devices divide the input signal into separate frequency bands; a separate level is determined within each frequency band; and compression in each band is based on the level within each band. ChannelFree processing detects the wideband level, and gain adjustments are based on the wideband signal level and adjusted up to 20,000 times per second. Although both signal processing strategies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if differences in these signal processing strategies affect the performance and/or preference of the end user. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of multichannel wide dynamic range compression and ChannelFree processing on performance and/or preference of listeners using open-canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Fourteen adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two 5 wk trial periods for each signal processing strategy. Probe microphone, behavioral and subjective measures were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Behavioral and subjective results for both signal processing strategies were significantly better than unaided results; however, behavioral and subjective results were not significantly different between the signal processing strategies. Conclusions: Multichannel WDRC and ChannelFree processing are both effective signal processing strategies that provide significant benefit for hearing instrument users. Overall preference between the strategies may be related to the degree of hearing loss of the user, high-frequency in-situ levels, and/or acceptance of background noise.

scholarly journals Signal Processing Strategies for Cochlear Implants Using Current Steering

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Waldo Nogueira ◽  
Leonid Litvak ◽  
Bernd Edler ◽  
Jörn Ostermann ◽  
Andreas Büchner
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Current Steering ◽  
Processing Strategies

scholarly journals Development of auditory and language skills in children using cochlear implants with two signal processing strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (6) ◽  
pp. 720-726
Author(s):  
Tatiana Mendes de Melo ◽  
Elisabete Honda Yamaguti ◽  
Adriane Lima Mortari Moret ◽  
Orozimbo Alves Costa ◽  
Natália Barreto Frederigue Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Processing Strategies

A Within-Subject Comparison of Adult Patients Using the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 Speech Processing Strategies

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Parkinson ◽  
Richard S. Tyler ◽  
George G. Woodworth ◽  
Mary W. Lowder ◽  
Bruce J. Gantz
Keyword(s):  
Speech Processing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Processing Strategy ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Average Performance ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Consonant Recognition ◽  
Subject Comparison

This study compares the Nucleus F0F1F2 and F0F1F2B3B4B5 (also known as “Multipeak” or “Mpeak”) processing schemes in 17 patients wearing the Mini Speech Processor. All patients had at least 18 months implant experience using the F0F1F2 processing strategy. For this study, they were switched to the F0F1F2B3B4B5 processing strategy for 3 months. They then returned to using the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months, then used the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy again for 3 months, and lastly used the F0F1F2 strategy for 3 months. Performance was evaluated with both schemes after each interval, using speech recognition tests and subjective ratings. Overall, differences between the results for the two processing schemes were not large. Average performance was somewhat better for the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy for word and sentence identification, but not for any of the other speech measures. Superior performance was observed in 8 patients with the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy. However, 6 of the 8 individuals were significantly better on only one of the six speech measures in the test battery. The other 2 patients performed better on two of the speech measures. Superior performance was also observed in 3 patients with the F0F1F2 strategy for consonant recognition. For the remaining patients, there was little difference in their performance with the two strategies. Information transmission analyses indicated that the F0F1F2B3B4B5 strategy transmitted consonant duration and frication cues more efficiently than F0F1F2. Experience with one strategy appeared to benefit performance with the other strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document