Left-Right and Front-Back Spatial Hearing with Multiple Directional Microphone Configurations in Modern Hearing Aids

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (09) ◽  
pp. 791-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyne Carette ◽  
Tim Van den Bogaert ◽  
Mark Laureyns ◽  
Jan Wouters
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Frequency Dependent ◽  
Binaural Cues ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Spectral Cues ◽  
Localization Performance ◽  
Asymmetric Configuration

Background: Several studies have demonstrated negative effects of directional microphone configurations on left-right and front-back (FB) sound localization. New processing schemes, such as frequency-dependent directionality and front focus with wireless ear-to-ear communication in recent, commercial hearing aids may preserve the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and may introduce useful spectral cues necessary for FB disambiguation. Purpose: In this study, two hearing aids with different processing schemes, which were both designed to preserve the ability to localize sounds in the horizontal plane (left-right and FB), were compared. Research Design: We compared horizontal (left-right and FB) sound localization performance of hearing aid users fitted with two types of behind-the-ear (BTE) devices. The first type of BTE device had four different programs that provided (1) no directionality, (2–3) symmetric frequency-dependent directionality, and (4) an asymmetric configuration. The second pair of BTE devices was evaluated in its omnidirectional setting. This setting automatically activates a soft forward-oriented directional scheme that mimics the pinna effect. Also, wireless communication between the hearing aids was present in this configuration (5). A broadband stimulus was used as a target signal. The directional hearing abilities of the listeners were also evaluated without hearing aids as a reference. Study Sample: A total of 12 listeners with moderate to severe hearing loss participated in this study. All were experienced hearing-aid users. As a reference, 11 listeners with normal hearing participated. Data Collection and Analysis: The participants were positioned in a 13-speaker array (left-right, –90°/+90°) or 7-speaker array (FB, 0–180°) and were asked to report the number of the loudspeaker located the closest to where the sound was perceived. The root mean square error was calculated for the left-right experiment, and the percentage of FB errors was used as a FB performance measure. Results were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the left-right localization task, no significant differences could be proven between the unaided condition and both partial directional schemes and the omnidirectional scheme. The soft forward-oriented system and the asymmetric system did show a detrimental effect compared with the unaided condition. On average, localization was worst when users used the asymmetric condition. Analysis of the results of the FB experiment showed good performance, similar to unaided, with both the partial directional systems and the asymmetric configuration. Significantly worse performance was found with the omnidirectional and the omnidirectional soft forward-oriented BTE systems compared with the other hearing-aid systems. Conclusions: Bilaterally fitted partial directional systems preserve (part of) the binaural cues necessary for left-right localization and introduce, preserve, or enhance useful spectral cues that allow FB disambiguation. Omnidirectional systems, although good for left-right localization, do not provide the user with enough spectral information for an optimal FB localization performance.

Amount of Frequency Compression in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users Is a Poor Predictor for Audibility and Spatial Hearing

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Snandan Sharma ◽  
Waldo Nogueira ◽  
A. John van Opstal ◽  
Josef Chalupper ◽  
Lucas H. M. Mens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Knee Point ◽  
Localization Performance

Purpose Speech understanding in noise and horizontal sound localization is poor in most cochlear implant (CI) users with a hearing aid (bimodal stimulation). This study investigated the effect of static and less-extreme adaptive frequency compression in hearing aids on spatial hearing. By means of frequency compression, we aimed to restore high-frequency audibility, and thus improve sound localization and spatial speech recognition. Method Sound-detection thresholds, sound localization, and spatial speech recognition were measured in eight bimodal CI users, with and without frequency compression. We tested two compression algorithms: a static algorithm, which compressed frequencies beyond the compression knee point (160 or 480 Hz), and an adaptive algorithm, which aimed to compress only consonants leaving vowels unaffected (adaptive knee-point frequencies from 736 to 2946 Hz). Results Compression yielded a strong audibility benefit (high-frequency thresholds improved by 40 and 24 dB for static and adaptive compression, respectively), no meaningful improvement in localization performance (errors remained > 30 deg), and spatial speech recognition across all participants. Localization biases without compression (toward the hearing-aid and implant side for low- and high-frequency sounds, respectively) disappeared or reversed with compression. The audibility benefits provided to each bimodal user partially explained any individual improvements in localization performance; shifts in bias; and, for six out of eight participants, benefits in spatial speech recognition. Conclusions We speculate that limiting factors such as a persistent hearing asymmetry and mismatch in spectral overlap prevent compression in bimodal users from improving sound localization. Therefore, the benefit in spatial release from masking by compression is likely due to a shift of attention to the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio facilitated by compression, rather than an improved spatial selectivity. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16869485

The effect of frequency-dependent microphone directionality on horizontal localization performance in hearing-aid users

2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (11) ◽  
pp. 789-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Anna O'Brien ◽  
Jens-Uwe Hain ◽  
Margot McLelland ◽  
Ingrid Yeend
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Frequency Dependent ◽  
Localization Performance

Effects of CIC Hearing Aids on Auditory Localization by Listeners With Normal Hearing

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. D'Angelo ◽  
Robert S. Bolia ◽  
Pamela J. Mishler ◽  
Linda J. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Auditory Localization ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Significant Decrement ◽  
Localization Performance

An experiment was conducted to determine the effects of completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids on auditory localization performance. Six normal-hearing listeners localized a 750-ms broadband noise from loudspeakers ranging in azimuth from –180° to +180° and in elevation from –75° to +90°. Independent variables included the presence or absence of the hearing aid and the elevation of the source. Dependent measures included azimuth error, elevation error, and the percentage of trials resulting in a front-back confusion. The findings indicate a statistically significant decrement in localization acuity, both in azimuth and elevation, occasioned by the wearing of CIC hearing aids. However, the magni-tude of this decrement was small compared to those typically caused by other ear-canal occlusions, such as earplugs, and would probably not engender mislocalization of real-world sounds.

scholarly journals The Effect of Hearing Aid Technologies on Listening in an Automobile

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (06) ◽  
pp. 474-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Rachel W. Stanziola
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Road Noise ◽  
Processing Scheme ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones

Background: Communication while traveling in an automobile often is very difficult for hearing aid users. This is because the automobile/road noise level is usually high, and listeners/drivers often do not have access to visual cues. Since the talker of interest usually is not located in front of the listener/driver, conventional directional processing that places the directivity beam toward the listener's front may not be helpful and, in fact, could have a negative impact on speech recognition (when compared to omnidirectional processing). Recently, technologies have become available in commercial hearing aids that are designed to improve speech recognition and/or listening effort in noisy conditions where talkers are located behind or beside the listener. These technologies include (1) a directional microphone system that uses a backward-facing directivity pattern (Back-DIR processing), (2) a technology that transmits audio signals from the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to the ear with the poorer SNR (Side-Transmission processing), and (3) a signal processing scheme that suppresses the noise at the ear with the poorer SNR (Side-Suppression processing). Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of (1) conventional directional microphones and (2) newer signal processing schemes (Back-DIR, Side-Transmission, and Side-Suppression) on listener's speech recognition performance and preference for communication in a traveling automobile. Research Design: A single-blinded, repeated-measures design was used. Study Sample: Twenty-five adults with bilateral symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss aged 44 through 84 yr participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The automobile/road noise and sentences of the Connected Speech Test (CST) were recorded through hearing aids in a standard van moving at a speed of 70 mph on a paved highway. The hearing aids were programmed to omnidirectional microphone, conventional adaptive directional microphone, and the three newer schemes. CST sentences were presented from the side and back of the hearing aids, which were placed on the ears of a manikin. The recorded stimuli were presented to listeners via earphones in a sound-treated booth to assess speech recognition performance and preference with each programmed condition. Results: Compared to omnidirectional microphones, conventional adaptive directional processing had a detrimental effect on speech recognition when speech was presented from the back or side of the listener. Back-DIR and Side-Transmission processing improved speech recognition performance (relative to both omnidirectional and adaptive directional processing) when speech was from the back and side, respectively. The performance with Side-Suppression processing was better than with adaptive directional processing when speech was from the side. The participants' preferences for a given processing scheme were generally consistent with speech recognition results. Conclusions: The finding that performance with adaptive directional processing was poorer than with omnidirectional microphones demonstrates the importance of selecting the correct microphone technology for different listening situations. The results also suggest the feasibility of using hearing aid technologies to provide a better listening experience for hearing aid users in automobiles.

scholarly journals Tracking of Noise Tolerance to Measure Hearing Aid Benefit

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (08) ◽  
pp. 698-707
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Eric Seper ◽  
Chi-Chuen Lau ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Tolerance ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Test Conditions

AbstractThe benefits offered by noise reduction (NR) features on a hearing aid had been studied traditionally using test conditions that set the hearing aids into a stable state of performance. While adequate, this approach does not allow the differentiation of two NR algorithms that differ in their timing characteristics (i.e., activation and stabilization time).The current study investigated a new method of measuring noise tolerance (Tracking of Noise Tolerance [TNT]) as a means to differentiate hearing aid technologies. The study determined the within-session and between-session reliability of the procedure. The benefits provided by various hearing aid conditions (aided, two NR algorithms, and a directional microphone algorithm) were measured using this procedure. Performance on normal-hearing listeners was also measured for referencing.A single-blinded, repeated-measures design was used.Thirteen experienced hearing aid wearers with a bilaterally symmetrical (≤10 dB) mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study. In addition, seven normal-hearing listeners were tested in the unaided condition.Participants tracked the noise level that met the criterion of tolerable noise level (TNL) in the presence of an 85 dB SPL continuous discourse passage. The test conditions included an unaided condition and an aided condition with combinations of NR and microphone modes within the UNIQUE hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR; directional microphone, no NR; and directional microphone, NR) and the DREAM hearing aid (omnidirectional microphone, no NR; omnidirectional microphone, NR). Each tracking trial lasted 2 min for each hearing aid condition. Normal-hearing listeners tracked in the unaided condition only. Nine of the 13 hearing-impaired listeners returned after 3 mo for retesting in the unaided and aided conditions with the UNIQUE hearing aid. The individual TNL was estimated for each participant for all test conditions. The TNT index was calculated as the difference between 85 dB SPL and the TNL.The TNT index varied from 2.2 dB in the omnidirectional microphone, no NR condition to −4.4 dB in the directional microphone, NR on condition. Normal-hearing listeners reported a TNT index of −5.7 dB using this procedure. The averaged improvement in TNT offered by the NR algorithm on the UNIQUE varied from 2.1 dB when used with a directional microphone to 3.0 dB when used with the omnidirectional microphone. The time course of the NR algorithm was different between the UNIQUE and the DREAM hearing aids, with the UNIQUE reaching a stable TNL sooner than the DREAM. The averaged improvement in TNT index from the UNIQUE directional microphone was 3.6 dB when NR was activated and 4.4 dB when NR was deactivated. Together, directional microphone and NR resulted in a total TNT improvement of 6.5 dB. The test–retest reliability of the procedure was high, with an intrasession 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.2 dB and an intersession 95% CI of 4.2 dB.The effect of the NR and directional microphone algorithms was measured to be 2–3 and 3.6–4.4 dB, respectively, using the TNT procedure. Because of its tracking property and reliability, this procedure may hold promise in differentiating among some hearing aid features that also differ in their time course of action.

Hearing Aid Signal Processing for Children: When and How to Use It

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Scollie
Keyword(s):  
Signal Processing ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
General Goals ◽  
Selection Of

This article describes the general goals for applying the principles of evidence-based practice to clinical decision making, as applied to the selection of hearing aid signal processing for children with hearing loss. Two scenarios are considered: the case of using directional microphone hearing aids and the use of frequency lowering signal processing for mild to moderate losses. Neither situation is as simple as it seems. The evidence for each is reviewed, and questions to ask when applying each for individual children are presented, with discussion of advantages and disadvantages.

Binaural Application of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

1998 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Andy J. Beynon ◽  
Catharina T. M. van der Pouw ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Listening Condition ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Listening

Most, but not all, hearing-impaired patients with air conduction hearing aids prefer binaural amplification instead of monaural amplification. The binaural application of the bone conduction hearing aid is more disputable, because the attenuation (in decibels) of sound waves across the skull is so small (10 dB) that even one bone conduction hearing aid will stimulate both cochleas approximately to the same extent. Binaural fitting of the bone-anchored hearing aid was studied in three experienced bone-anchored hearing aid users. The experiments showed that sound localization, and speech recognition in quiet and also under certain noisy conditions improved significantly with binaural listening compared to the monaural listening condition. On the average, the percentage of correct identifications (within 45°) in the sound localization experiment improved by 53% with binaural listening; the speech reception threshold in quiet improved by 4.4 dB. The binaural advantage in the speech-in-noise test was comparable to that of a control group of subjects with normal hearing listening monaurally versus binaurally. The improvements in the scores were ascribed to diotic summation (improved speech recognition in quiet) and the ability to separate sounds in the binaural listening condition (improved sound localization and improved speech recognition in noise whenever the speech and noise signals came from different directions). All three patients preferred the binaural bone-anchored hearing aids and used them all day.

Bilateral Digital Hearing Aids for Binaural Hearing

1994 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry P. Kimberley ◽  
Rob Dymond ◽  
Abram Gamer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Digital Signal ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Digital Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Psychophysical Testing ◽  
Localization Performance ◽  
Localization Ability

The rehabilitation of binaural hearing performance in hearing impaired listeners has received relatively little attention to date. Both localization ability and speech-understanding-in noise are affected in the impaired listener. When localization performance is tested in impaired ears with conventional hearing aid fittings it is found to be worse than the unaided condition. Advances in electronic design now permit speculation about the implementation of complex digital filters within the confines of an in-the-ear hearing aid. We have begun exploring strategies to enhance the localization performance of impaired listeners with bilateral digital signal processing. We are examining three strategies in bilateral hearing aid design to improve localization performance in hearing impaired listeners, namely 1) more accurate fitting of individual ear losses, 2) equalization of the effect of the hearing aid itself on the acoustics within the ear canal, and 3) binaural fitting strategies which in effect modify individual ear fittings to enhance localization performance. The results of early psychophysical testing suggests that localization performance can be improved with these strategies.

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.

Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Directional Microphone Benefit and Preference

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 662-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Kenneth W. Grant ◽  
W. Van Summers ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Directional Hearing Aids

This study examined speech intelligibility and preferences for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aid processing across a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A primary motivation for the study was to determine whether SNR might be used to represent distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms based on scene analysis. Participants were current hearing aid users who either had experience with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids only or with manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Using IEEE/Harvard sentences from a front loudspeaker and speech-shaped noise from three loudspeakers located behind and to the sides of the listener, the directional advantage (DA) was obtained at 11 SNRs ranging from -15 dB to +15 dB in 3 dB steps. Preferences for the two microphone modes at each of the 11 SNRs were also obtained using concatenated IEEE sentences presented in the speech-shaped noise. Results revealed that a DA was observed across a broad range of SNRs, although directional processing provided the greatest benefit within a narrower range of SNRs. Mean data suggested that microphone preferences were determined largely by the DA, such that the greater the benefit to speech intelligibility provided by the directional microphones, the more likely the listeners were to prefer that processing mode. However, inspection of the individual data revealed that highly predictive relationships did not exist for most individual participants. Few preferences for omnidirectional processing were observed. Overall, the results did not support the use of SNR to estimate the effects of distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document