Improving Speech Intelligibility in Background Noise with an Adaptive Directional Microphone

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (07) ◽  
pp. 519-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Blamey ◽  
Hayley J. Fiket ◽  
Brenton R. Steele
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

Omnidirectional, supercardioid, and adaptive directional microphones (ADM) were evaluated in combination with the ADRO® amplification scheme for eight participants with moderate sloping hearing losses. The ADM produced better speech perception scores than the other two microphones in all noise conditions. Participants performed the Hearing in Noise Test sentences at -4.5 dB SNR or better, which is similar to the level achievable with normal hearing. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale indicated no disadvantages of using the ADM relative to the omnidirectional microphone in real-life situations. The ADM was preferred over the omnidirectional microphone in 54% of situations, compared to 17% preferences for the omnidirectional microphone, and 29% no preference. The combination of the ADM to improve SNR, and ADRO® to keep the signal output comfortable and audible provided near-normal hearing performance for people with moderate hearing loss. The ADM is the recommended microphone configuration for ADRO hearing aids.

Effects of Frequency Modulation (FM) Transmitter Microphone Directivity on Speech Perception in Noise

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Nicole V. Kreisman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Wide Angle ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Noise Test

Frequency modulation (FM) technology can significantly improve the speech perception ability of individuals with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in background noise. Previous investigations have demonstrated that the microphone design of the FM transmitter can have a significant impact on this improved speech perception. The purpose of this investigation was to compare 3 types of FM transmitter microphone designs: (a) wide angle (omnidirectional microphone), which amplifies sounds coming from all directions around the microphone equally; (b) zoom (1 directional microphone), which provides less amplification to signals coming from the rear, and (c) superzoom (2 directional microphones), which provides less amplification to signals originating from the rear and the sides. Fifteen adults with bilateral slight to moderately severe SNHL participated. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994). Speech spectrum shaped noise served as the noise competition. Results revealed that the best speech perception in noise was obtained when the FM transmitter was used in the zoom setting. The poorest performance was obtained when the FM transmitter was in the wide-angle mode. The clinical implications of these results are discussed.

scholarly journals Speech Perception in Noise: Directional Microphones versus Frequency Modulation (FM) Systems

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 426-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Samantha Lewis ◽  
Carl C. Crandell ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jane Enrietto Horn
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Frequency Modulation ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Diffuse Noise ◽  
Better Than

The major consequence of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is communicative difficulty, especially with the addition of noise and/or reverberation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare two types of technologies that have been shown to improve the speech-perception performance of individuals with SNHL: directional microphones and frequency modulation (FM) systems. Forty-six adult subjects with slight to severe SNHL served as subjects. Speech perception was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) with correlated diffuse noise under five different listening conditions. Results revealed that speech perception was significantly better with the use of the FM system over that of any of the hearing aid conditions, even with the use of the directional microphone. Additionally, speech perception was significantly better with the use of two hearing aids used in conjunction with two FM receivers rather than with just one FM receiver. Directional microphone performance was significantly better than omnidirectional microphone performance. All aided listening conditions were significantly better than the unaided listening condition.

The Effects of Varying Directional Bandwidth in Hearing Aid Users' Preference and Speech-in-Noise Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Adriana Goyette ◽  
Jeff Crukley ◽  
Jason Galster
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Internal Noise ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Noise Performance ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise

Purpose Directional microphone systems are typically used to improve hearing aid users' understanding of speech in noise. However, directional microphones also increase internal hearing aid noise. The purpose of this study was to investigate how varying directional microphone bandwidth affected listening preference and speech-in-noise performance. Method Ten participants with normal hearing and 10 participants with hearing impairment compared internal noise levels between hearing aid memories with 4 different microphone modes: omnidirectional, full directional, high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 900 Hz, and high-frequency directionality with directional processing above 2000 Hz. Speech-in-noise performance was measured with each memory for the participants with hearing impairment. Results Participants with normal hearing preferred memories with less directional bandwidth. Participants with hearing impairment also tended to prefer the memories with less directional bandwidth. However, the majority of participants with hearing impairment did not indicate a preference between omnidirectional and directional above 2000 Hz memories. Average hearing-in-noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth. Conclusions Most participants preferred memories with less directional bandwidth in quiet. Participants with hearing impairment indicated no difference in preference between directional above 2000 Hz and the omnidirectional memories. Speech recognition in noise performance improved with increasing directional bandwidth.

Performance of Directional Microphones for Hearing Aids: Real-World versus Simulation

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 440-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia L. Compton-Conley ◽  
Arlene C. Neuman ◽  
Mead C. Killion ◽  
Harry Levitt
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Noise Source ◽  
Live Performance ◽  
Space Condition ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Simulation Techniques ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Absolute

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of clinical and laboratory measures of directional microphone benefit. Three methods of simulating a noisy restaurant listening situation ([1] a multimicrophone/multiloudspeaker simulation, the R-SPACE™, [2] a single noise source behind the listener, and [3] a single noise source above the listener) were evaluated and compared to the "live" condition. Performance with three directional microphone systems differing in polar pattern (omnidirectional, supercardioid, and hypercardioid array) and directivity indices (0.34, 4.20, and 7.71) was assessed using a modified version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT). The evaluation revealed that the three microphones could be ordered with regard to the benefit obtained using any of the simulation techniques. However, the absolute performance obtained with each microphone type differed among simulations. Only the R-SPACE simulation yielded accurate estimates of the absolute performance of all three microphones in the live condition. Performance in the R-SPACE condition was not significantly different from performance in the "live restaurant" condition. Neither of the single noise source simulations provided accurate predictions of real-world (live) performance for all three microphones.

Quantification of Directional Benefit across Different Polar Response Patterns

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (09) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Jessica L.M. Egge ◽  
Jill L. Tubbs ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner ◽  
Gregory A. Flamme
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the directivity of a directional microphone hearing aid and listener performance. Hearing aids were fit bilaterally to 19 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss, and five microphone conditions were assessed: omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid, and "monofit," wherein the left hearing aid was set to omnidirectional and the right hearing aid to hypercardioid. Speech perception performance was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Connected Speech Test (CST). Subjects also assessed eight domains of sound quality for three stimuli (speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music). A diffuse soundfield system composed of eight loudspeakers forming the corners of a cube was used to output the background noise for the speech perception tasks and the three stimuli used for sound quality judgments. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the HINT or CST performance, or sound quality judgments, across the four directional microphone conditions when tested in a diffuse field. Of particular interest was the monofit condition: Performance on speech perception tests was the same whether one or two directional microphones were used.

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.

scholarly journals Effect of Type of Noise and Loudspeaker Array on the Performance of Omnidirectional and Directional Microphones

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (06) ◽  
pp. 398-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Valente ◽  
Karen M. Mispagel ◽  
Juergen Tchorz ◽  
David Fabry
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
The Past ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Array Performance ◽  
Better Than

Differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were evaluated between two loudspeaker conditions (single loudspeaker at 180°; diffuse using eight loudspeakers set 45° apart) and two types of noise (steady-state HINT noise; R-Space™ restaurant noise). Twenty-five participants were fit bilaterally with Phonak Perseo hearing aids using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the parameters were fine-tuned based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were assessed using HINT sentences presented at 0° with the two types of background noise held constant at 65 dBA and under the two loudspeaker conditions.Results revealed significant differences in Reception Thresholds for Sentences (RTS in dB) where directional performance was significantly better than omnidirectional. Performance in the 180° condition was significantly better than the diffuse condition, and performance was significantly better using the HINT noise in comparison to the R-Space restaurant noise. In addition, results revealed that within each loudspeaker array, performance was significantly better for the directional microphone. Looking across loudspeaker arrays, however, significant differences were not present in omnidirectional performance, but directional performance was significantly better in the 180° condition when compared to the diffuse condition. These findings are discussed in terms of results reported in the past and counseling patients on the potential advantages of directional microphones as the listening situation and type of noise changes.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

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.

A Clinical Perspective on Cochlear Dead Regions: Intelligibility of Speech and Subjective Hearing Aid Benefit

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (08) ◽  
pp. 600-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill E. Preminger ◽  
Ryan Carpenter ◽  
Craig H. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Clinical Perspective ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Cochlear Dead Regions ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Using the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test, 49 subjects with at least two pure-tone thresholds per ear greater than 50 dB HL and none greater than 80 dB HL were evaluated for the presence or absence of dead regions. The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the prevalence of cochlear dead regions in this clinical population, (2) measure whether listeners with dead regions performed differently than listeners without dead regions on a speech intelligibility in noise test, and (3) determine whether cochlear dead regions are associated with reduced subjective hearing aid performance. The results showed that (1) twenty-nine percent of the subjects tested positive for dead regions, (2) listeners with dead regions had poorer sentence understanding in noise than listeners without dead regions and (3) listeners with dead regions perceived poorer subjective hearing aid performance in listening environments with reverberation or background noise as compared to those without dead regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document