Towards a next-generation hearing aid through brain state classification and modeling

Traditional brain-state classifications are primarily based on two well-known neural biomarkers: P300 and motor imagery / event-related frequency modulation. Currently, many brain-computer interface (BCI) systems have successfully helped patients with severe neuromuscular disabilities to regain independence. In order to translate this neural engineering success to hearing aid applications, we must be able to capture brain waves across the population reliably in cortical regions that have not previously been incorporated in these systems before, for example, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and right temporoparietal junction. Here, we present a brain-state classification framework that incorporates individual anatomical information and accounts for potential anatomical and functional differences across subjects by applying appropriate cortical weighting functions prior to the classification stage. Using an inverse imaging approach, use simulated EEG data to show that our method can outperform the traditional brain-state classification approach that trains only on individual subject's data without considering data available at a population level.

[1]  R. Leahy,et al.  EEG and MEG: forward solutions for inverse methods , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Jayne B Ahlstrom,et al.  Spatial Benefit of Bilateral Hearing Aids , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Douglas Noffsinger,et al.  Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Todd A Ricketts,et al.  Directional hearing aids: then and now. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  J M Festen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  W. Noble Bilateral hearing aids: A review of self-reports of benefit in comparison with unilateral fitting , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[7]  M. Hämäläinen,et al.  Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Eric Larson,et al.  The cortical dynamics underlying effective switching of auditory spatial attention , 2013, NeuroImage.

[9]  A. Dale,et al.  High‐resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[10]  Guy J. Brown,et al.  Computational Auditory Scene Analysis: Principles, Algorithms, and Applications , 2006 .

[11]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.