Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-Space background noise.

BACKGROUND Difficulty understanding in background noise is a common complaint of cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Programming options are available to improve speech recognition in noise for CI users including automatic dynamic range optimization (ADRO), autosensitivity control (ASC), and a two-stage adaptive beamforming algorithm (BEAM). However, the processing option that results in the best speech recognition in noise is unknown. In addition, laboratory measures of these processing options often show greater degrees of improvement than reported by participants in everyday listening situations. To address this issue, Compton-Conley and colleagues developed a test system to replicate a restaurant environment. The R-SPACE™ consists of eight loudspeakers positioned in a 360 degree arc and utilizes a recording made at a restaurant of background noise. PURPOSE The present study measured speech recognition in the R-SPACE with four processing options: standard dual-port directional (STD), ADRO, ASC, and BEAM. RESEARCH DESIGN A repeated-measures, within-subject design was used to evaluate the four different processing options at two noise levels. STUDY SAMPLE Twenty-seven unilateral and three bilateral adult Nucleus Freedom CI recipients. INTERVENTION The participants' everyday program (with no additional processing) was used as the STD program. ADRO, ASC, and BEAM were added individually to the STD program to create a total of four programs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Participants repeated Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented at 0 degrees azimuth with R-SPACE restaurant noise at two noise levels, 60 and 70 dB SPL. The reception threshold for sentences (RTS) was obtained for each processing condition and noise level. RESULTS In 60 dB SPL noise, BEAM processing resulted in the best RTS, with a significant improvement over STD and ADRO processing. In 70 dB SPL noise, ASC and BEAM processing had significantly better mean RTSs compared to STD and ADRO processing. Comparison of noise levels showed that STD and BEAM processing resulted in significantly poorer RTSs in 70 dB SPL noise compared to the performance with these processing conditions in 60 dB SPL noise. Bilateral participants demonstrated a bilateral improvement compared to the better monaural condition for both noise levels and all processing conditions, except ASC in 60 dB SPL noise. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the use of processing options that utilize noise reduction, like those available in ASC and BEAM, improve a CI recipient's ability to understand speech in noise in listening situations similar to those experienced in the real world. The choice of the best processing option is dependent on the noise level, with BEAM best at moderate noise levels and ASC best at loud noise levels for unilateral CI recipients. Therefore, multiple noise programs or a combination of processing options may be necessary to provide CI users with the best performance in a variety of listening situations.

[1]  L. A. Jeffress,et al.  Localization of High‐Frequency Tones , 1957 .

[2]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Three-Month Results with Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[3]  R R Coles,et al.  Binaural advantages in hearing of speech , 1971, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[4]  King Chung,et al.  Using hearing aid adaptive directional microphones to enhance cochlear implant performance , 2009, Hearing Research.

[5]  P. Blamey Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO): A Digital Amplification Strategy for Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[6]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. Tyler,et al.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Gabrielle H Saunders,et al.  The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and Its Relationship to Aided Reported Handicap and Hearing Aid Satisfaction , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[9]  W Soede,et al.  Assessment of a directional microphone array for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Sigfrid D. Soli,et al.  Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds , 1992 .

[11]  J. Ahlstrom,et al.  Binaural advantage for younger and older adults with normal hearing. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  J Vanden Berghe,et al.  Speech Recognition in Noise for Cochlear Implantees with a Two-Microphone Monaural Adaptive Noise Reduction System , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[13]  B J Gantz,et al.  Single-channel to multichannel conversions in adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  J. Jerger,et al.  Preferred Method For Clinical Determination Of Pure-Tone Thresholds , 1959 .

[17]  Emily Buss,et al.  Hearing-in-Noise Benefits After Bilateral Simultaneous Cochlear Implantation Continue to Improve 4 Years After Implantation , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[18]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Adaptive noise suppression for a dual-microphone hearing aid: Supresión adaptativa del ruido para un auxiliar auditivo con micrófono dual , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[19]  J D Durrant,et al.  Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  R. Plomp,et al.  Binaural speech intelligibility in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  B E Walden,et al.  Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  J Vanden Berghe,et al.  An adaptive noise canceller for hearing aids using two nearby microphones. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  A. Duquesnoy The intelligibility of sentences in quiet and in noise in aged listeners. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  A M Amlani,et al.  Efficacy of directional microphone hearing aids: a meta-analytic perspective. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  R. V. Hoesel Exploring the benefits of bilateral cochlear implants. , 2004 .

[28]  Peter J Blamey,et al.  Improving speech intelligibility in background noise with an adaptive directional microphone. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[29]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[30]  R. V. van Hoesel Exploring the Benefits of Bilateral Cochlear Implants , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[31]  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.

[32]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Utilizing advanced hearing aid technologies as pre-processors to enhance cochlear implant performance , 2004, Cochlear implants international.

[33]  L. Rabiner,et al.  Predicting binaural gain in intelligibility and release from masking for speech. , 1967, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  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.

[35]  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.

[36]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Evaluation of binaural functions in bilateral cochlear implant users , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[37]  E. Domico,et al.  Speech Recognition in Background Noise of Cochlear Implant Patients , 2002, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[38]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Spatial Hearing and Speech Intelligibility in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[39]  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.

[40]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[41]  R M Cox,et al.  Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[42]  C. Buchman,et al.  Bilateral cochlear implantation: Current concepts, indications, and results , 2009, The Laryngoscope.

[43]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Multicenter U.S. Bilateral MED-EL Cochlear Implantation Study: Speech Perception over the First Year of Use , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[44]  J. Müller,et al.  Speech Understanding in Quiet and Noise in Bilateral Users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+ Cochlear Implant System , 2002, Ear and hearing.

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

[46]  D. Markle,et al.  Hearing Aids , 1936, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[47]  R S Tyler,et al.  Consonant recognition by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[49]  Richard Van Hoesel,et al.  Sound-Direction Identification, Interaural Time Delay Discrimination, and Speech Intelligibility Advantages in Noise for a Bilateral Cochlear Implant User , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[50]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[52]  M Valente,et al.  Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[53]  Sergei Kochkin,et al.  MarkeTrak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age , 2005 .

[54]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[55]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[56]  M. Demorest,et al.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Michael Valente,et al.  Hearing AIDS: Standards, Options, and Limitations , 1996 .

[58]  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.

[59]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Sound Field Audiometry: Recommended Stimuli and Procedures , 1984, Ear and hearing.

[60]  R Plomp,et al.  Effect of multiple speechlike maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[62]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[64]  Richard S Tyler,et al.  Update on bilateral cochlear implantation , 2003, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[65]  Thomas J Balkany,et al.  Benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation: a review , 2007, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[66]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Accuracy of audiometric test room simulations of three real-world listening environments , 1991 .

[67]  James F Patrick,et al.  The Development of the Nucleus® Freedom™ Cochlear Implant System , 2006, Trends in amplification.

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

[69]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[70]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Optimizing Cochlear Implant Speech Performance , 2003, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.