Microphone directionality and wind noise reduction enhance speech perception in users of the MED-EL SONNET audio processor

Objectives: Speech understanding in noise remains a challenge for many cochlear implant users. To improve this, the SONNET audio processor features three microphone directionality (MD) settings and three wind noise reduction (WNR) settings. The primary aim of this study was to assess if speech understanding in noise and hearing in real life was superior with the SONNET or with the OPUS 2, which does not feature MD or WNR. Methods: 31 of 33 participants completed the study. Speech understanding was assessed in two types of acoustic noise, in wind noise, and in quiet. A 4-speaker setup was used and speech was presented from 0° and noise from 90°, 180°, and 270°. Wind noise was simulated with a fan. Sound quality and hearing-related abilities were assessed via two subjective questionnaires. Results: Speech understanding in acoustic noise with the SONNET was significantly better or equal to than with the OPUS 2. Speech understanding in wind with the OPUS 2 was significantly better than with the SONNET in some settings. Sound quality and hearing-related abilities were both significantly better with the SONNET. Conclusions: The SONNET provides the same or significantly improved speech understanding than the OPUS 2 in quiet and in noise. While OPUS 2 was superior in wind than the SONNET in some settings, this was offset by SONNET's superiority in real-life listening situations. We therefore conclude that the front-end processing of the SONNET provides users with better hearing than does the OPUS 2.

[1]  Navjot Bhullar,et al.  Hearing Handicap Ratings Among Different Profiles of Adult Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Influence of contralateral acoustic hearing on adult bimodal outcomes after cochlear implantation , 2016, International journal of audiology.

[3]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Music and Quality of Life in Early-Deafened Late-Implanted Adult Cochlear Implant Users , 2013, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  M. Leinung,et al.  Hearing Preservation and Improved Speech Perception With a Flexible 28-mm Electrode , 2014, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[5]  Justin A. Zakis Wind noise at microphones within and across hearing aids at wind speeds below and above microphone saturation. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Marco Caversaccio,et al.  Speech Intelligibility in Noise With a Pinna Effect Imitating Cochlear Implant Processor , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  Joachim Müller-Deile,et al.  Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: Reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[8]  Effects of Stimulation Rate With the FS4 and HDCIS Coding Strategies in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[9]  U. Hoppe,et al.  Speech Perception of Elderly Cochlear Implant Users Under Different Noise Conditions , 2015, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  Omid Majdani,et al.  Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis , 2017, PloS one.

[11]  King Chung,et al.  Microphone directionality, pre-emphasis filter, and wind noise in cochlear implants. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Advanced Beamformers for Cochlear Implant Users: Acute Measurement of Speech Perception in Challenging Listening Conditions , 2014, PloS one.

[13]  Speech Perception in Quiet and Noise With an Off the Ear CI Processor Enabling Adaptive Microphone Directionality. , 2018, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  F. Risi Considerations and Rationale for Cochlear Implant Electrode Design - Past, Present and Future. , 2019, The journal of international advanced otology.

[15]  Joseph M. Chen,et al.  Telephone use and the factors influencing it among cochlear implant patients , 2011, Cochlear implants international.

[16]  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.

[17]  Kostas Kokkinakis,et al.  Reducing the impact of wind noise on cochlear implant processors with two microphones. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Improved Speech Intelligibility With Cochlear Implants Using State-of-the-Art Noise Reduction Algorithms , 2012, ITG Conference on Speech Communication.

[19]  Norbert Dillier,et al.  Subjective and Objective Results After Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[20]  阿德里安·丹尼尔 Improved speech intelligibility , 2016 .

[21]  Adam A. Hersbach,et al.  Combining Directional Microphone and Single-Channel Noise Reduction Algorithms: A Clinical Evaluation in Difficult Listening Conditions With Cochlear Implant Users , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Inge Stegeman,et al.  Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2016, JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery.

[23]  Matthias Bertram,et al.  A Two-Microphone Noise Reduction System for Cochlear Implant Users with Nearby Microphones—Part II: Performance Evaluation , 2008, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[24]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  Fixed and adaptive beamforming improves speech perception in noise in cochlear implant recipients equipped with the MED-EL SONNET audio processor , 2018, PloS one.

[25]  U. Baumann,et al.  Hearing Preservation After Complete Cochlear Coverage in Cochlear Implantation With the Free-Fitting FLEXSOFT Electrode Carrier , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[26]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: A remarkable past and a brilliant future , 2008, Hearing Research.

[27]  Priscila Faissola Caporali,et al.  Cross cultural translation and adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese of the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index Questionnaire - (HISQUI19). , 2016, CoDAS.

[28]  Ilona Anderson,et al.  Telephone use: What benefit do cochlear implant users receive? , 2006, International journal of audiology.

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

[30]  Ilona Anderson,et al.  Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19) , 2014, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[31]  Karl-Heinz Hahlbrock,et al.  Über Sprachaudiometrie und neue Wörterteste , 2005, Archiv für Ohren-, Nasen- und Kehlkopfheilkunde.

[32]  D.H. Johnson,et al.  The Signal Processing Information Base , 1993, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[33]  Joachim Müller-Deile,et al.  Speech Perception and Subjective Preference with Fine Structure Coding Strategies , 2016 .

[34]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  FS4, FS4-p, and FSP: A 4-Month Crossover Study of 3 Fine Structure Sound-Coding Strategies , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[35]  Jace Wolfe,et al.  Benefit of a Commercially Available Cochlear Implant Processor With Dual-Microphone Beamforming: A Multi-Center Study , 2012, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[36]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Patient-Related Benefits for Adults with Cochlear Implantation: A Multicultural Longitudinal Observational Study , 2017, Audiology and Neurotology.

[37]  I. Mosnier,et al.  Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users , 2017, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[38]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Speech reception threshold benefits in cochlear implant users with an adaptive beamformer in real life situations , 2015, Cochlear implants international.

[39]  M. Calvino,et al.  Validation of the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19) to assess Spanish-speaking cochlear implant users’ auditory abilities in everyday communication situations , 2016, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[40]  Graham Naylor,et al.  A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: The SSQ12 , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[41]  Tim Jürgens,et al.  Coherent Coding of Enhanced Interaural Cues Improves Sound Localization in Noise With Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2018, Trends in hearing.

[42]  King Chung,et al.  Wind noise in hearing aids with directional and omnidirectional microphones: polar characteristics of behind-the-ear hearing aids. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.