Speech recognition in noise using bilateral open-fit hearing aids: The limited benefit of directional microphones and noise reduction

2012 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lennart Magnusson ◽  
Ann Claesson ◽  
Maria Persson ◽  
Tomas Tengstrand
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

scholarly journals Multitasking with typical use of hearing aid noise reduction in older listeners

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Schoof ◽  
Pamela Souza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Dual Task Paradigm

Objective: Older hearing-impaired adults typically experience difficulties understanding speech in noise. Most hearing aids address this issue using digital noise reduction. While noise reduction does not necessarily improve speech recognition, it may reduce the resources required to process the speech signal. Those available resources may, in turn, aid the ability to perform another task while listening to speech (i.e., multitasking). This study examined to what extent changing the strength of digital noise reduction in hearing aids affects the ability to multitask. Design: Multitasking was measured using a dual-task paradigm, combining a speech recognition task and a visual monitoring task. The speech recognition task involved sentence recognition in the presence of six-talker babble at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of 2 and 7 dB. Participants were fit with commercially-available hearing aids programmed under three noise reduction settings: off, mild, strong. Study sample: 18 hearing-impaired older adults. Results: There were no effects of noise reduction on the ability to multitask, or on the ability to recognize speech in noise. Conclusions: Adjustment of noise reduction settings in the clinic may not invariably improve performance for some tasks.

Effectiveness of Directional Microphones and Noise Reduction Schemes in Hearing Aids: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (07) ◽  
pp. 473-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to find evidence of real-world effectiveness of directional microphone and digital noise reduction features in current hearing aids. The evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized intervention studies, and descriptive studies. The quality of each study was evaluated for factors such as blinding, power of statistical analyses, and use of psychometrically strong outcome measures. Weaknesses in the identified studies included small sample size, resultant poor power to detect potentially worthwhile differences, and overlapping experimental conditions. Nine studies were identified for directional microphones, and the evidence (albeit weak) supports effectiveness. Two studies were identified for the noise reduction feature, and the evidence was equivocal. For the researcher, such a systematic review should encourage the careful consideration of appropriate methodologies for assessing feature effectiveness. For the clinician, the outcomes reported herein should encourage use of such a systematic review to drive clinical practice.

scholarly journals Sentence Recognition in Noise and Perceived Benefit of Noise Reduction on the Receiver and Transmitter Sides of a BICROS Hearing Aid

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 980-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

Background: In the past, bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BICROS) amplification incorporated omnidirectional microphones on the transmitter and receiver sides and some models utilized noise reduction (NR) on the receiver side. Little research has examined the performance of BICROS amplification in background noise. However, previous studies examining contralateral routing of signals (CROS) amplification have reported that the presence of background noise on the transmitter side negatively affected speech recognition. Recently, NR was introduced as a feature on the receiver and transmitter sides of BICROS amplification, which has the potential to decrease the impact of noise on the wanted speech signal by decreasing unwanted noise directed to the transmitter side. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to examine differences in the reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) in a diffuse listening environment between unaided and three aided BICROS conditions (no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR) in the Tandem 16 BICROS. A secondary goal was to examine real-world subjective impressions of the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided. Research Design: A randomized block repeated measures single blind design was used to assess differences between no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR listening conditions. Study Sample: Twenty-one adult participants with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) and experience with BICROS amplification were recruited from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were fit with the National Acoustic Laboratories’ Nonlinear version 1 prescriptive target (NAL-NL1) with the Tandem 16 BICROS at the initial visit and then verified using real-ear insertion gain (REIG) measures. Participants acclimatized to the Tandem 16 BICROS for 4 wk before returning for final testing. Participants were tested utilizing HINT sentences examining differences in RTS between unaided and three aided listening conditions. Subjective benefit was determined via the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire between the Tandem 16 BICROS and unaided. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to analyze the results of the HINT and APHAB. Results: Results revealed no significant differences in the RTS between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. Subjective impressions using the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit with the Tandem 16 BICROS compared to unaided for the Ease of Communication (EC), Background Noise (BN), and Reverberation (RV) subscales. Conclusions: The RTS was not significantly different between unaided, no NR, mild NR, and maximum NR. None of the three aided listening conditions were significantly different from unaided performance as has been reported for previous studies examining CROS hearing aids. Further, based on comments from participants and previous research studies with conventional hearing aids, manufacturers of BICROS amplification should consider incorporating directional microphones and independent volume controls on the receiver and transmitter sides to potentially provide further improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for patients with ASNHL.

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.

The Effects of Noise Reduction Technologies on the Acceptance of Background Noise

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (08) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Jones Lowery ◽  
Patrick N. Plyler
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Noise Type ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Speech Spectrum

Background: Directional microphones (D-Mics) and digital noise reduction (DNR) algorithms are used in hearing aids to reduce the negative effects of background noise on performance. Directional microphones attenuate sounds arriving from anywhere other than the front of the listener while DNR attenuates sounds with physical characteristics of noise. Although both noise reduction technologies are currently available in hearing aids, it is unclear if the use of these technologies in isolation or together affects acceptance of noise and/or preference for the end user when used in various types of background noise. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to determine the effects of D-Mic, DNR, or the combination of D-Mic and DNR on acceptance of noise and preference when listening in various types of background noise. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeated measures design was utilized. Study Sample: Thirty adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss participated (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Acceptable noise levels (ANLs) were obtained using no noise reduction technologies, D-Mic only, DNR only, and the combination of the two technologies (Combo) for three different background noises (single-talker speech, speech-shaped noise, and multitalker babble) for each listener. In addition, preference rankings of the noise reduction technologies were obtained within each background noise (1 = best, 3 = worst). Results: ANL values were significantly better for each noise reduction technology than baseline; and benefit increased significantly from DNR to D-Mic to Combo. Listeners with higher (worse) baseline ANLs received more benefit from noise reduction technologies than listeners with lower (better) baseline ANLs. Neither ANL values nor ANL benefit values were significantly affected by background noise type; however, ANL benefit with D-Mic and Combo was similar when speech-like noise was present while ANL benefit was greatest for Combo when speech spectrum noise was present. Listeners preferred the hearing aid settings that resulted in the best ANL value. Conclusion: Noise reduction technologies improved ANL for each noise type, and the amount of improvement was related to the baseline ANL value. Improving an ANL with noise reduction technologies is noticeable to listeners, at least when examined in this laboratory setting, and listeners prefer noise reduction technologies that improved their ability to accept noise.

Auditory Outcomes with Hearing Rehabilitation in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swathi Appachi ◽  
Jessica. L. Specht ◽  
Nikhila Raol ◽  
Judith E. C. Lieu ◽  
Michael S. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Objective Options for management of unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children include conventional hearing aids, bone-conduction hearing devices, contralateral routing of signal (CROS) aids, and frequency-modulating (FM) systems. The objective of this study was to systematically review the current literature to characterize auditory outcomes of hearing rehabilitation options in UHL. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2016. Manual searches of bibliographies were also performed. Review Methods Studies analyzing auditory outcomes of hearing amplification in children with UHL were included. Outcome measures included functional and objective auditory results. Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract and article. Results Of the 249 articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. Seven articles solely focused on outcomes with bone-conduction hearing devices. Outcomes favored improved pure-tone averages, speech recognition thresholds, and sound localization in implanted patients. Five studies focused on FM systems, conventional hearing aids, or CROS hearing aids. Limited data are available but suggest a trend toward improvement in speech perception with hearing aids. FM systems were shown to have the most benefit for speech recognition in noise. Studies evaluating CROS hearing aids demonstrated variable outcomes. Conclusions Data evaluating functional and objective auditory measures following hearing amplification in children with UHL are limited. Most studies do suggest improvement in speech perception, speech recognition in noise, and sound localization with a hearing rehabilitation device.

scholarly journals Thoughts on the potential to compensate a hearing loss in noise

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 311
Author(s):  
Marc René Schädler
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Class A ◽  
Class D ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Compensation Approach ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The effect of hearing impairment on speech perception was described by Plomp (1978) as a sum of a loss of class A, due to signal attenuation, and a loss of class D, due to signal distortion. While a loss of class A can be compensated by linear amplification, a loss of class D, which severely limits the benefit of hearing aids in noisy listening conditions, cannot. The hearing loss of class D is assumed to be the main reason why not few users of hearing aids keep complaining about the limited benefit of their devices in noisy environments. Working compensation strategies against it are unknown. Methods: Recently, in an approach to model human speech recognition by means of a re-purposed automatic speech recognition (ASR) system, the loss of class D was explained by introducing a level uncertainty which reduces the individual accuracy of spectro-temporal signal levels. Based on this finding, an implementation of a patented dynamic range manipulation scheme (PLATT) is proposed which aims to mitigate the effect of increased level uncertainty on speech recognition in noise by expanding spectral modulation patterns in the range of 2 to 4 ERB. This compensation approach is objectively evaluated regarding the benefit in speech recognition thresholds in noise using the ASR-based speech recognition model. Recommendations for an evaluation with human listeners are derived. Results: The objective evaluation suggests that approximately half of the class D loss due to an increased level uncertainty might be compensable. To measure the effect with human listeners, an experiment needs to be carefully designed to prevent the confusion class A and D loss compensations. Conclusions: A working compensation strategy for the class D loss could provide previously unexploited potential for relief. Evidence has to be provided in experiments with human listeners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document