scholarly journals The Temporal Fine Structure of Background Noise Determines the Benefit of Bimodal Hearing for Recognizing Speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 527-544
Author(s):  
H. C. Stronks ◽  
J. J. Briaire ◽  
J. H. M. Frijns
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Babble Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Abstract Cochlear implant (CI) users have more difficulty understanding speech in temporally modulated noise than in steady-state (SS) noise. This is thought to be caused by the limited low-frequency information that CIs provide, as well as by the envelope coding in CIs that discards the temporal fine structure (TFS). Contralateral amplification with a hearing aid, referred to as bimodal hearing, can potentially provide CI users with TFS cues to complement the envelope cues provided by the CI signal. In this study, we investigated whether the use of a CI alone provides access to only envelope cues and whether acoustic amplification can provide additional access to TFS cues. To this end, we evaluated speech recognition in bimodal listeners, using SS noise and two amplitude-modulated noise types, namely babble noise and amplitude-modulated steady-state (AMSS) noise. We hypothesized that speech recognition in noise depends on the envelope of the noise, but not on its TFS when listening with a CI. Secondly, we hypothesized that the amount of benefit gained by the addition of a contralateral hearing aid depends on both the envelope and TFS of the noise. The two amplitude-modulated noise types decreased speech recognition more effectively than SS noise. Against expectations, however, we found that babble noise decreased speech recognition more effectively than AMSS noise in the CI-only condition. Therefore, we rejected our hypothesis that TFS is not available to CI users. In line with expectations, we found that the bimodal benefit was highest in babble noise. However, there was no significant difference between the bimodal benefit obtained in SS and AMSS noise. Our results suggest that a CI alone can provide TFS cues and that bimodal benefits in noise depend on TFS, but not on the envelope of the noise.

Working Memory Capacity May Influence Perceived Effort during Aided Speech Recognition in Noise

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (08) ◽  
pp. 577-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rudner ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
Thomas Behrens ◽  
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén ◽  
Jerker Rönnberg
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Perceived Effort ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Recently there has been interest in using subjective ratings as a measure of perceived effort during speech recognition in noise. Perceived effort may be an indicator of cognitive load. Thus, subjective effort ratings during speech recognition in noise may covary both with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and individual cognitive capacity. Purpose: The present study investigated the relation between subjective ratings of the effort involved in listening to speech in noise, speech recognition performance, and individual working memory (WM) capacity in hearing impaired hearing aid users. Research Design: In two experiments, participants with hearing loss rated perceived effort during aided speech perception in noise. Noise type and SNR were manipulated in both experiments, and in the second experiment hearing aid compression release settings were also manipulated. Speech recognition performance was measured along with WM capacity. Study Sample: There were 46 participants in all with bilateral mild to moderate sloping hearing loss. In Experiment 1 there were 16 native Danish speakers (eight women and eight men) with a mean age of 63.5 yr (SD = 12.1) and average pure tone (PT) threshold of 47. 6 dB (SD = 9.8). In Experiment 2 there were 30 native Swedish speakers (19 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 70 yr (SD = 7.8) and average PT threshold of 45.8 dB (SD = 6.6). Data Collection and Analysis: A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for effort rating in both experiments. In Experiment 1, effort was rated at individually adapted SNRs while in Experiment 2 it was rated at fixed SNRs. Speech recognition in noise performance was measured using adaptive procedures in both experiments with Dantale II sentences in Experiment 1 and Hagerman sentences in Experiment 2. WM capacity was measured using a letter-monitoring task in Experiment 1 and the reading span task in Experiment 2. Results: In both experiments, there was a strong and significant relation between rated effort and SNR that was independent of individual WM capacity, whereas the relation between rated effort and noise type seemed to be influenced by individual WM capacity. Experiment 2 showed that hearing aid compression setting influenced rated effort. Conclusions: Subjective ratings of the effort involved in speech recognition in noise reflect SNRs, and individual cognitive capacity seems to influence relative rating of noise type.

Can envelope recovery account for speech recognition based on temporal fine structure?

2013 ◽  
Vol 133 (5) ◽  
pp. 3380-3380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederic Apoux ◽  
Carla L. Youngdahl ◽  
Sarah E. Yoho ◽  
Eric W. Healy
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Temporal Fine Structure

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

scholarly journals Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Gieseler ◽  
Maike A. S. Tahden ◽  
Christiane M. Thiel ◽  
Kirsten C. Wagener ◽  
Markus Meis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals Recognition and Localization of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients Wearing a Digital Hearing Aid in the Nonimplanted Ear (Bimodal Hearing)

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (06) ◽  
pp. 353-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Potts ◽  
Margaret W. Skinner ◽  
Ruth A. Litovsky ◽  
Michael J. Strube ◽  
Francis Kuk
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bilateral Stimulation ◽  
Bimodal Condition ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Loudness Growth ◽  
Bimodal Hearing

Background: The use of bilateral amplification is now common clinical practice for hearing aid users but not for cochlear implant recipients. In the past, most cochlear implant recipients were implanted in one ear and wore only a monaural cochlear implant processor. There has been recent interest in benefits arising from bilateral stimulation that may be present for cochlear implant recipients. One option for bilateral stimulation is the use of a cochlear implant in one ear and a hearing aid in the opposite nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing). Purpose: This study evaluated the effect of wearing a cochlear implant in one ear and a digital hearing aid in the opposite ear on speech recognition and localization. Research Design: A repeated-measures correlational study was completed. Study Sample: Nineteen adult Cochlear Nucleus 24 implant recipients participated in the study. Intervention: The participants were fit with a Widex Senso Vita 38 hearing aid to achieve maximum audibility and comfort within their dynamic range. Data Collection and Analysis: Soundfield thresholds, loudness growth, speech recognition, localization, and subjective questionnaires were obtained six–eight weeks after the hearing aid fitting. Testing was completed in three conditions: hearing aid only, cochlear implant only, and cochlear implant and hearing aid (bimodal). All tests were repeated four weeks after the first test session. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Significant effects were further examined using pairwise comparison of means or in the case of continuous moderators, regression analyses. The speech-recognition and localization tasks were unique, in that a speech stimulus presented from a variety of roaming azimuths (140 degree loudspeaker array) was used. Results: Performance in the bimodal condition was significantly better for speech recognition and localization compared to the cochlear implant–only and hearing aid–only conditions. Performance was also different between these conditions when the location (i.e., side of the loudspeaker array that presented the word) was analyzed. In the bimodal condition, the speech-recognition and localization tasks were equal regardless of which side of the loudspeaker array presented the word, while performance was significantly poorer for the monaural conditions (hearing aid only and cochlear implant only) when the words were presented on the side with no stimulation. Binaural loudness summation of 1–3 dB was seen in soundfield thresholds and loudness growth in the bimodal condition. Measures of the audibility of sound with the hearing aid, including unaided thresholds, soundfield thresholds, and the Speech Intelligibility Index, were significant moderators of speech recognition and localization. Based on the questionnaire responses, participants showed a strong preference for bimodal stimulation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a well-fit digital hearing aid worn in conjunction with a cochlear implant is beneficial to speech recognition and localization. The dynamic test procedures used in this study illustrate the importance of bilateral hearing for locating, identifying, and switching attention between multiple speakers. It is recommended that unilateral cochlear implant recipients, with measurable unaided hearing thresholds, be fit with a hearing aid.

scholarly journals Dynamic Relation Between Working Memory Capacity and Speech Recognition in Noise During the First 6 Months of Hearing Aid Use

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 233121651455868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine H. N. Ng ◽  
Elisabet Classon ◽  
Birgitta Larsby ◽  
Stig Arlinger ◽  
Thomas Lunner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Dynamic Relation ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document