Speech reception threshold benefits in cochlear implant users with an adaptive beamformer in real life situations

Abstract Objectives To compare the Naida CI UltraZoom adaptive beamformer and T-Mic settings in a real life environment. Methods Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured in a moderately reverberant room, using the German Oldenburger sentence test. The speech signal was always presented from the front loudspeaker at 0° azimuth and fixed masking noise was presented either simultaneously from all eight loudspeakers around the subject at 0°, ±45°, ±90°, ±135°, and 180° azimuth or from five loudspeakers positioned at ±70°, ±135°, and 180° azimuth. In the third test setup, an additional roving noise was added to the six loudspeaker arrangement. Results There was a significant difference in mean SRTs between the Naida CI T-Mic and UltraZoom in each of the three test setups. The largest improvements were seen in the six speaker roving and fixed noise conditions. Adding ClearVoice to the Naida CI T-Mic setting significantly improved the SRT in both fixed noise conditions, but not in the roving noise condition. In each setup, the lowest SRTs were obtained with the UltraZoom plus ClearVoice setting. Discussion The degree of improvement was consistent with previous beamforming studies. In the most challenging listening situation, with noise from eight speakers and speech and noise presented coincidentally from the front, UltraZoom still provided a significant benefit. When a moving noise source was added, the improvement in SRT provided by UltraZoom was maintained. Conclusion When tested in challenging and realistic noise environments, the Naida CI UltraZoom adaptive beamformer resulted in significantly lower mean SRTs than when the T-Mic alone was used.

[1]  King Chung,et al.  Noise reduction technologies implemented in head-worn preprocessors for improving cochlear implant performance in reverberant noise fields , 2012, Hearing Research.

[2]  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.

[3]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[4]  J M Kates,et al.  Speech intelligibility enhancement using hearing-aid array processing. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[6]  R C Seewald,et al.  Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[8]  Paula P. Henry,et al.  Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid: Evaluación de un auxiliar auditivo de micrófono direccional adaptable , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[9]  René H Gifford,et al.  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. , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[10]  Ryan W McCreery,et al.  An evidence-based systematic review of directional microphones and digital noise reduction hearing aids in school-age children with hearing loss. , 2012, American journal of audiology.

[11]  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.

[12]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Results of a Pilot Study With a Signal Enhancement Algorithm for HiRes 120 Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[13]  T Ricketts,et al.  Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[14]  M Kompis,et al.  Performance of an adaptive beamforming noise reduction scheme for hearing aid applications. II. Experimental verification of the predictions. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[16]  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.

[17]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  List equivalency of the AzBio sentence test in noise for listeners with normal-hearing sensitivity or cochlear implants. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  P M Zurek,et al.  Evaluation of an adaptive beamforming method for hearing aids. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  H. Dillon,et al.  Binaural-Bimodal Fitting or Bilateral Implantation for Managing Severe to Profound Deafness: A Review , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[20]  M Valente,et al.  Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  R. Bentler Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  J M Kates Superdirective arrays for hearing aids , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics.

[24]  Alison M Brockmeyer,et al.  Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[25]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[26]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS) , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[27]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[28]  P M Zurek,et al.  Robustness of an Adaptive Beamforming Method for Hearing Aids. , 1990, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[30]  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.

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

[32]  David Fabry,et al.  Effect of type of noise and loudspeaker array on the performance of omnidirectional and directional microphones. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.