Effect of Signal-to-Noise Ratio on Directional Microphone Benefit and Preference

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (09) ◽  
pp. 662-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Kenneth W. Grant ◽  
W. Van Summers ◽  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Directional Hearing Aids

This study examined speech intelligibility and preferences for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aid processing across a range of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). A primary motivation for the study was to determine whether SNR might be used to represent distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms based on scene analysis. Participants were current hearing aid users who either had experience with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids only or with manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Using IEEE/Harvard sentences from a front loudspeaker and speech-shaped noise from three loudspeakers located behind and to the sides of the listener, the directional advantage (DA) was obtained at 11 SNRs ranging from -15 dB to +15 dB in 3 dB steps. Preferences for the two microphone modes at each of the 11 SNRs were also obtained using concatenated IEEE sentences presented in the speech-shaped noise. Results revealed that a DA was observed across a broad range of SNRs, although directional processing provided the greatest benefit within a narrower range of SNRs. Mean data suggested that microphone preferences were determined largely by the DA, such that the greater the benefit to speech intelligibility provided by the directional microphones, the more likely the listeners were to prefer that processing mode. However, inspection of the individual data revealed that highly predictive relationships did not exist for most individual participants. Few preferences for omnidirectional processing were observed. Overall, the results did not support the use of SNR to estimate the effects of distance between talker and listener in automatic directionality algorithms.

Performance of Directional Microphone Hearing Aids in Everyday Life

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (06) ◽  
pp. 295-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary T. Cord ◽  
Rauna K. Surr ◽  
Brian E. Walden ◽  
Laurel Olson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Perceived Performance ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Directional Hearing Aids

This study explored the use patterns and benefits of directional microphone technology in real world situations experienced by patients who had been fitted with switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids. Telephone interviews and paper-and-pencil questionnaires were used to assess perceived performance with each microphone type in a variety of listening situations. Patients who used their hearing aids regularly and switched between the two microphone configurations reported using the directional mode, on average, about one-quarter of the time. From brief descriptions, patients could identify listening situations in which each microphone mode should provide superior performance. Further, they reported encountering listening situations in which an omnidirectional microphone should provide better performance more frequently than listening situations in which the directional microphones should be superior. Despite using the omnidirectional mode more often and encountering situations in which an omnidirectional microphone should provide superior performance more frequently, participants reported the same level of satisfaction with each microphone type.

scholarly journals Increasing the Effectiveness of Hearing Aid Directional Microphones

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 224-236
Author(s):  
Charlotte T. Jespersen ◽  
Brent C. Kirkwood ◽  
Jennifer Groth
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Laboratory Studies ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Listening Strategies ◽  
Binaural Listening

AbstractDirectionality is the only hearing aid technology — in addition to amplification — proven to help hearing aid users hear better in noise. Hearing aid directionality has been documented to improve speech intelligibility in multiple laboratory studies. In contrast, real-world studies have shown a disconnect between the potential of the technology and what hearing aid users experience in their daily life. This article describes the real-world studies that inspired ReSound to take a different approach to applying directional microphone technology. This approach is based on the idea that hearing aid directionality can leverage natural binaural hearing and inherent listening strategies. The directional strategy includes three listening modes that will be explained. These are the Spatial Cue Preservation mode, the Binaural Listening mode, and the Speech Intelligibility mode. The strategy and the advantages it provides in terms of sound quality, spatial hearing, and improved signal-to-noise ratio with maintained awareness of surroundings are explained.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio Advantage of Binaural Hearing Aids and Directional Microphones under Different Levels of Reverberation

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Hawkins ◽  
William S. Yacullo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Binaural Hearing Aids ◽  
Omnidirectional Microphones ◽  
Different Levels

The signal-to-noise ratio necessary for a constant performance level was determined for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects under three levels of reverberation (0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 s) with monaural and binaural hearing aids having directional and omnidirectional microphones. Results indicated (a) a significant binaural advantage (2–3 dB) which was independent of microphone type and reverberation time, (b) a significant directional microphone advantage (3–4 dB) which was independent of hearing aid arrangement (monaural or binaural) but dependent on level of reverberation, (c) a significant reverberation effect which was larger than either the binaural or directional microphone effect, and (d) additive binaural and directional microphone advantages. The results suggest that the signal-to-noise ratio is optimized when binaural hearing aids with directional microphones are used in rooms with short reverberation times.

Review of Recent Research on the Selection of Frequency-Gain Characteristics for Hearing Aids

1980 ◽  
Vol 89 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-83
Author(s):  
Richard Lippmann
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Gain Characteristic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Fitting Hearing Aids ◽  
Selection Of

Following the Harvard master hearing aid study in 1947 there was little research on linear amplification. Recently, however, there have been a number of studies designed to determine the relationship between the frequency-gain characteristic of a hearing aid and speech intelligibility for persons with sensorineural hearing loss. These studies have demonstrated that a frequency-gain characteristic that rises at a rate of 6 dB/octave, as suggested by the Harvard study, is not optimal. They have also demonstrated that high-frequency emphasis of 10–40 dB above 500–1000 Hz is beneficial. Most importantly, they have demonstrated that hearing aids as they are presently being fit do not provide maximum speech intelligibility. Percent word correct scores obtained with the best frequency-gain characteristics tested in various studies have been found to be 9 to 19 percentage points higher than scores obtained with commercial aids owned by subjects. This increase in scores is equivalent to an increase in signal-to-noise ratio of 10 to 20 dB. This is a significant increase which could allow impaired listeners to communicate in many situations where they presently cannot. These results demonstrate the need for further research on linear amplification aimed at developing practical suggestions for fitting hearing aids.

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.

A Test to Measure Subjective and Objective Speech Intelligibility

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 038-049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Kathleen M. Cienkowski
Keyword(s):  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Measurement Signal ◽  
Perceptual Performance ◽  
Noise Ratio ◽  
Performance Discrepancy

Measurement of hearing aid outcome is particularly difficult because there are numerous dimensions to consider (e.g., performance, satisfaction, benefit). Often there are discrepancies between scores in these dimensions. It is difficult to reconcile these discrepancies because the materials and formats used to measure each dimension are so very different. We report data obtained with an outcome measure that examines both objective and subjective dimensions with the same test format and materials and gives results in the same unit of measurement (signal-to-noise ratio). Two variables are measured: a “performance” speech reception threshold and a “perceptual” speech reception threshold. The signal-to-noise ratio difference between these is computed to determine the perceptual-performance discrepancy (PPDIS). The results showed that, on average, 48 percent of the variance in subjective ratings of a hearing aid could be explained by a combination of the performance speech reception threshold and the PPDIS. These findings suggest that the measure is potentially a valuable clinical tool.

scholarly journals Consistency of Hearing Aid Setting Preference in Simulated Real-World Environments: Implications for Trainable Hearing Aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 233121652093339
Author(s):  
Els Walravens ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Traffic Noise ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Change Environment ◽  
Noise Ratio

Trainable hearing aids let users fine-tune their hearing aid settings in their own listening environment: Based on consistent user-adjustments and information about the acoustic environment, the trainable aids will change environment-specific settings to the user’s preference. A requirement for effective fine-tuning is consistency of preference for similar settings in similar environments. The aim of this study was to evaluate consistency of preference for settings differing in intensity, gain-frequency slope, and directionality when listening in simulated real-world environments and to determine if participants with more consistent preferences could be identified based on profile measures. A total of 52 adults (63–88 years) with hearing varying from normal to a moderate sensorineural hearing loss selected their preferred setting from pairs differing in intensity (3 or 6 dB), gain-frequency slope (±1.3 or ± 2.7 dB/octave), or directionality (omnidirectional vs. cardioid) in four simulated real-world environments: traffic noise, a monologue in traffic noise at 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio, and a dialogue in café noise at 5 and at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Forced-choice comparisons were made 10 times for each combination of pairs of settings and environment. Participants also completed nine psychoacoustic, cognitive, and personality measures. Consistency of preference, defined by a setting preferred at least 9 out of 10 times, varied across participants. More participants obtained consistent preferences for larger differences between settings and less difficult environments. The profile measures did not predict consistency of preference. Trainable aid users could benefit from counselling to ensure realistic expectations for particular adjustments and listening situations.

Effects of Adaptive Hearing Aid Directionality and Noise Reduction on Masked Speech Recognition for Children Who Are Hard of Hearing

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Browning ◽  
Emily Buss ◽  
Mary Flaherty ◽  
Tim Vallier ◽  
Lori J. Leibold
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Fully Adaptive ◽  
Noise Ratio

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech-in-noise and speech-in-speech recognition associated with activation of a fully adaptive directional hearing aid algorithm in children with mild to severe bilateral sensory/neural hearing loss. Method Fourteen children (5–14 years old) who are hard of hearing participated in this study. Participants wore laboratory hearing aids. Open-set word recognition thresholds were measured adaptively for 2 hearing aid settings: (a) omnidirectional (OMNI) and (b) fully adaptive directionality. Each hearing aid setting was evaluated in 3 listening conditions. Fourteen children with normal hearing served as age-matched controls. Results Children who are hard of hearing required a more advantageous signal-to-noise ratio than children with normal hearing to achieve comparable performance in all 3 conditions. For children who are hard of hearing, the average improvement in signal-to-noise ratio when comparing fully adaptive directionality to OMNI was 4.0 dB in noise, regardless of target location. Children performed similarly with fully adaptive directionality and OMNI settings in the presence of the speech maskers. Conclusions Compared to OMNI, fully adaptive directionality improved speech recognition in steady noise for children who are hard of hearing, even when they were not facing the target source. This algorithm did not affect speech recognition when the background noise was speech. Although the use of hearing aids with fully adaptive directionality is not proposed as a substitute for remote microphone systems, it appears to offer several advantages over fixed directionality, because it does not depend on children facing the target talker and provides access to multiple talkers within the environment. Additional experiments are required to further evaluate children's performance under a variety of spatial configurations in the presence of both noise and speech maskers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document