Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise.

BACKGROUND Although cochlear implant patients are achieving increasingly higher levels of performance, speech perception in noise continues to be problematic. The newest generations of implant speech processors are equipped with preprocessing and/or external accessories that are purported to improve listening in noise. Most speech perception measures in the clinical setting, however, do not provide a close approximation to real-world listening environments. PURPOSE To assess speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in the presence of a realistic restaurant simulation generated by an eight-loudspeaker (R-SPACE) array in order to determine whether commercially available preprocessing strategies and/or external accessories yield improved sentence recognition in noise. RESEARCH DESIGN Single-subject, repeated-measures design with two groups of participants: Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation recipients. STUDY SAMPLE Thirty-four subjects, ranging in age from 18 to 90 yr (mean 54.5 yr), participated in this prospective study. Fourteen subjects were Advanced Bionics recipients, and 20 subjects were Cochlear Corporation recipients. INTERVENTION Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in semidiffuse restaurant noise originating from an eight-loudspeaker array were assessed with the subjects' preferred listening programs as well as with the addition of either Beam preprocessing (Cochlear Corporation) or the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS In Experiment 1, adaptive SRTs with the Hearing in Noise Test sentences were obtained for all 34 subjects. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, SRTs were obtained with their preferred everyday listening program as well as with the addition of Focus preprocessing. For Advanced Bionics recipients, SRTs were obtained with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) mic as well as with the T-Mic. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of the preprocessing strategy or external accessory in reducing the SRT in noise. In addition, a standard t-test was run to evaluate effectiveness across manufacturer for improving the SRT in noise. In Experiment 2, 16 of the 20 Cochlear Corporation subjects were reassessed obtaining an SRT in noise using the manufacturer-suggested "Everyday," "Noise," and "Focus" preprocessing strategies. A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to assess the effects of preprocessing. RESULTS The primary findings were (i) both Noise and Focus preprocessing strategies (Cochlear Corporation) significantly improved the SRT in noise as compared to Everyday preprocessing, (ii) the T-Mic accessory option (Advanced Bionics) significantly improved the SRT as compared to the BTE mic, and (iii) Focus preprocessing and the T-Mic resulted in similar degrees of improvement that were not found to be significantly different from one another. CONCLUSION Options available in current cochlear implant sound processors are able to significantly improve speech understanding in a realistic, semidiffuse noise with both Cochlear Corporation and Advanced Bionics systems. For Cochlear Corporation recipients, Focus preprocessing yields the best speech-recognition performance in a complex listening environment; however, it is recommended that Noise preprocessing be used as the new default for everyday listening environments to avoid the need for switching programs throughout the day. For Advanced Bionics recipients, the T-Mic offers significantly improved performance in noise and is recommended for everyday use in all listening environments.

[1]  Rachel A McArdle,et al.  An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Sharon A McKarns,et al.  The Benefits of Combining Acoustic and Electric Stimulation for the Recognition of Speech, Voice and Melodies , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[3]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Experience of uni- and bilateral cochlear implant users with a microphone positioned in the pinna , 2004 .

[4]  Peter J Blamey,et al.  A digital processing strategy to optimize hearing aid outputs directly. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[5]  Wolfgang Gaggl,et al.  Recognition of Speech Presented at Soft to Loud Levels by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients of Three Cochlear Implant Systems , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Mario A. Svirsky,et al.  Speech Perception Benefits of Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children and Adults: A Retrospective Analysis , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[8]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[9]  Peter J Blamey,et al.  Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization for Cochlear Implants: A Preliminary Study , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[10]  E. Shaw Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Harry Levitt,et al.  Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: real-world versus simulation. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  René H Gifford,et al.  An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[14]  Aaron Parkinson,et al.  Simultaneous Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Multicenter Clinical Study , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Joseph Roberson,et al.  Nucleus Freedom North American Clinical Trial , 2007, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[16]  Jace Wolfe,et al.  Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  Speech Understanding in Background Noise with the Two-Microphone Adaptive Beamformer BEAM™ in the Nucleus Freedom™ Cochlear Implant System , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[18]  P. Dawson,et al.  Optimizing Dynamic Range in Children Using the Nucleus Cochlear Implant , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[19]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[20]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Speech Recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. , 2006, American journal of audiology.

[22]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[23]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Vlaamse opname van woordenlijsten voor spraakaudiometrie , 1994 .

[24]  Elizabeth M Fitzpatrick,et al.  The Benefits of Remote Microphone Technology for Adults with Cochlear Implants , 2009, Ear and hearing.