Efficacy of a Reverse Cardioid Directional Microphone

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 064-073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Denise Keenan
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise

Background: Directional microphones have been shown to improve a listener's ability to communicate in noise by improving the signal to noise ratio. However, their efficacy may be questioned in situations where the listener needs to understand speech originating from the back. Purpose: The goal of the study was to examine the performance of a directional microphone mode that has an automatic reverse cardioid polar pattern. Research Design: A single-blinded, factorial repeated-measures design was used to study the effect of microphone modes (reverse cardioid, omnidirectional, and front hypercardioid) and stimulus azimuths (front and back) on three outcome variables (aided thresholds, nonsense syllable identification in quiet, and sentence recognition in noise). Study Sample: Twenty adults with a mild-to-severe bilaterally symmetrical (±5 dB) sensorineural hearing loss participated. Intervention: Audibility in quiet was evaluated by obtaining aided sound field thresholds and speech identification at an input level of 50 dB SPL presented at 0 and 180° azimuths. In addition, speech understanding in noise was also assessed with the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented at both azimuths (0 and 180°) with a diffuse noise. Data Collection and Analysis: Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of microphone mode (omnidirectional, front hypercardioid, reverse cardioid) and stimulus azimuth (0°, 180°) on aided thresholds, nonsense syllable identification, and HINT performance. Results: Results with the reverse cardioid directional microphone in both quiet conditions were similar to the omnidirectional microphone. The results of the reverse cardioid microphone in noise were significantly better than the omnidirectional microphone and front hypercardioid microphone when speech was presented from the back (p < 0.001). Conclusions: These results support the possible benefits of a reverse cardioid directional microphone when used in specific listening situations.

An Integrative Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Directional Microphone and Noise Reduction Algorithm Under Realistic Signal-to-Noise Ratios

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Kuk ◽  
Christopher Slugocki ◽  
Petri Korhonen
Keyword(s):  
Noise Reduction ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone

Background: Many studies on the efficacy of directional microphones (DIRMs) and noise reduction (NR)algorithms were not conducted under realistic signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions. A Repeat–RecallTest (RRT) was developed previously to partially address this issue.<br />Purpose: This study evaluated whether the RRT could provide a more comprehensive understanding ofthe efficacy of a DIRM and NR algorithm under realistic SNRs. Possible interaction with listener workingmemory capacity (WMC) was assessed.<br />Research Design: This study uses a double-blind, within-subject repeated measures design.<br />Study Sample: Nineteen listeners with a moderate degree of hearing loss participated.<br />Data Collection and Analysis: The RRT was administered with participants wearing the study hearingaids (HAs) under two microphones (omnidirectional versus directional) by two NR (on versus off) conditions.Speech was presented from 0° at 75 dB SPL and a continuous noise from 180° at SNRs of 0, 5,10, and 15 dB. The order of SNR and HA conditions was counterbalanced across listeners. Each testcondition was completed twice in two 2-hour sessions separated by one month.<br />Results: The recall scores of listeners were used to group listeners into good and poor WMC groups.Analysis using linear mixed-effects models revealed significant effects of context, SNR, and microphonefor all four measures (repeat, recall, listening effort, and tolerable time). NR was only significant on thelistening effort scale in the DIRM mode at an SNR of 5 dB. Listeners with good WMC performed better onall measures of the RRT and benefitted more from context. Although DIRM benefitted listeners with goodand poor WMC, the benefits differed by context and SNR.<br />Conclusions: The RRT confirmed the efficacy of DIRM and NR on several outcome measures underrealistic SNRs. It also highlighted interactions between WMC and sentence context on feature efficacy.<br />

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.

Evaluation of Speech Recognition in Noise with Cochlear Implants and Dynamic FM

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (07) ◽  
pp. 409-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Erin C. Schafer ◽  
Benjamin Heldner ◽  
Hans Mülder ◽  
Emily Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Speech Processor ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Use of personal frequency-modulated (FM) systems significantly improves speech recognition in noise for users of cochlear implants (CIs). Previous studies have shown that the most appropriate gain setting on the FM receiver may vary based on the listening situation and the manufacturer of the CI system. Unlike traditional FM systems with fixed-gain settings, Dynamic FM automatically varies the gain of the FM receiver with changes in the ambient noise level. There are no published reports describing the benefits of Dynamic FM use for CI recipients or how Dynamic FM performance varies as a function of CI manufacturer. Purpose: To evaluate speech recognition of Advanced Bionics Corporation or Cochlear Corporation CI recipients using Dynamic FM vs. a traditional FM system and to examine the effects of Autosensitivity on the FM performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients. Research Design: A two-group repeated-measures design. Participants were assigned to a group according to their type of CI. Study Sample: Twenty-five subjects, ranging in age from 8 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria for one or more of the experiments. Thirteen subjects used Advanced Bionics Corporation, and 12 used Cochlear Corporation implants. Intervention: Speech recognition was assessed while subjects used traditional, fixed-gain FM systems and Dynamic FM systems. Data Collection and Analysis: In Experiments 1 and 2, speech recognition was evaluated with a traditional, fixed-gain FM system and a Dynamic FM system using the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and in classroom noise. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects of CI manufacturer (Advanced Bionics and Cochlear Corporation), type of FM system (traditional and dynamic), noise level, and use of Autosensitivity for users of Cochlear Corporation implants. Experiment 3 determined the effects of Autosensitivity on speech recognition of Cochlear Corporation implant recipients when listening through the speech processor microphone with the FM system muted. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the effects of signal-to-noise ratio and Autosensitivity. Results: In Experiment 1, use of Dynamic FM resulted in better speech recognition in noise for Advanced Bionics recipients relative to traditional FM at noise levels of 65, 70, and 75 dB SPL. Advanced Bionics recipients obtained better speech recognition in noise with FM use when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients. When Autosensitivity was enabled in Experiment 2, the performance of Cochlear Corporation recipients was equivalent to that of Advanced Bionics recipients, and Dynamic FM was significantly better than traditional FM. Results of Experiment 3 indicate that use of Autosensitivity improves speech recognition in noise of signals directed to the speech processor relative to no Autosensitivity. Conclusions: Dynamic FM should be considered for use with persons with CIs to improve speech recognition in noise. At default CI settings, FM performance is better for Advanced Bionics recipients when compared to Cochlear Corporation recipients, but use of Autosensitivity by Cochlear Corporation users results in equivalent group performance.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of the Directional Microphone in the ®Baha® Divino™

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (08) ◽  
pp. 546-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Jessica Kerckhoff
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Great Difficulty ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: Patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) experience great difficulty listening to speech in noisy environments. A directional microphone (DM) could potentially improve speech recognition in this difficult listening environment. It is well known that DMs in behind-the-ear (BTE) and custom hearing aids can provide a greater signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in comparison to an omnidirectional microphone (OM) to improve speech recognition in noise for persons with hearing impairment. Studies examining the DM in bone anchored auditory osseointegrated implants (Baha), however, have been mixed, with little to no benefit reported for the DM compared to an OM. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the mean reception threshold for sentences (RTS in dB) in noise between the OM and DM in the Baha® Divino™. The RTS of these two microphone modes was measured utilizing two loudspeaker arrays (speech from 0° and noise from 180° or a diffuse eight-loudspeaker array) and with the better ear open or closed with an earmold impression and noise attenuating earmuff. Subjective benefit was assessed using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) to compare unaided and aided (Divino OM and DM combined) problem scores. Research Design: A repeated measures design was utilized, with each subject counterbalanced to each of the eight treatment levels for three independent variables: (1) microphone (OM and DM), (2) loudspeaker array (180° and diffuse), and (3) better ear (open and closed). Study Sample: Sixteen subjects with USNHL currently utilizing the Baha were recruited from Washington University's Center for Advanced Medicine and the surrounding area. Data Collection and Analysis: Subjects were tested at the initial visit if they entered the study wearing the Divino or after at least four weeks of acclimatization to a loaner Divino. The RTS was determined utilizing Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences in the R-Space™ system, and subjective benefit was determined utilizing the APHAB. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired samples t-test were utilized to analyze results of the HINT and APHAB, respectively. Results: Results revealed statistically significant differences within microphone (p < 0.001; directional advantage of 3.2 dB), loudspeaker array (p = 0.046; 180° advantage of 1.1 dB), and better ear conditions (p < 0.001; open ear advantage of 4.9 dB). Results from the APHAB revealed statistically and clinically significant benefit for the Divino relative to unaided on the subscales of Ease of Communication (EC) (p = 0.037), Background Noise (BN) (p < 0.001), and Reverberation (RV) (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The Divino's DM provides a statistically significant improvement in speech recognition in noise compared to the OM for subjects with USNHL. Therefore, it is recommended that audiologists consider selecting a Baha with a DM to provide improved speech recognition performance in noisy listening environments.

Evaluation of a BICROS System with a Directional Microphone in the Receiver and Transmitter

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 856-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Valente ◽  
Kristi Oeding
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Final Visit ◽  
Listening Condition ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise ◽  
Asymmetric Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Background: The bilateral contralateral routing of signals (BICROS) system has provided limited benefit for speech recognition in noise for patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss, even when an automatic adaptive multichannel directional microphone (DM) is in the receiver (Rx) and an omnidirectional microphone (OM) is in the transmitter (Tx). A recent BICROS system was introduced that can be programmed with a DM in the Rx and an OM or a DM in the Tx. Purpose: To examine if significant differences in sentence recognition in noise and subjective preferences are present between an OM and an adaptive broadband DM programmed in the Tx of a BICROS system with an automatic adaptive multichannel DM programmed in the Rx. Research Design: A randomized crossover single-blind design was used to assess differences between the OM and DM programmed in the Tx. Study Sample: Eighteen adult experienced BICROS system users were recruited. Data Collection and Analysis: The BICROS system was fit using real-ear insertion gain measures. The Tx was programmed with an OM and a DM and the Rx was always programmed with an automatic adaptive multichannel DM. The order of microphone condition in the Tx was counterbalanced. Participants acclimatized to the BICROS system for 4 weeks and returned and completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) for the respective microphone condition. The Tx was then programmed with the other microphone condition and participants acclimatized for another four weeks. At the final visit, the APHAB was completed for the respective microphone condition. After eight weeks of acclimatization, Hearing in Noise Test sentences were presented in the R-Space™ system with the Tx in either the OM or DM condition for three listening conditions: (1) speech from 90° to the Rx and noise from 0°, 90°, and 180° to the Tx (Sp Rx/N Tx), (2) speech from 90° to the Tx and noise from 0°, 90°, and 180° to the Rx (Sp Tx/N Rx), and (3) speech from 0° and noise from eight surrounding loudspeakers separated by 45° (diffuse). Results: A two-factor repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between the OM and DM microphone conditions for Sp Rx/N Tx listening condition. A significant mean disadvantage of 1.9 dB (p < 0.01) was revealed for the DM compared to the OM for Sp Tx/N Rx listening condition and a mean advantage of 2.6 dB (p < 0.001) for the DM compared to the OM in a diffuse listening condition. There were no significant differences in the APHAB aided problem and resulting benefit scores between the OM and DM for the following subscales: ease of communication, background noise, reverberation, and aversiveness of sounds. Conclusions: No significant differences were revealed between OM and DM for Sp Rx/N Tx. The DM performed significantly poorer than OM for the Sp Tx/N Rx listening condition. Results revealed significant benefit for the DM compared to OM for the diffuse listening condition. No significant differences were revealed between the OM and DM on the APHAB.

Effect of Adaptive Compression and Fast-Acting WDRC Strategies on Sentence Recognition in Noise in Mandarin-Speaking Pediatric Hearing Aid Users

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (04) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Haihong Liu ◽  
Yuanhu Liu ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Xin Jin ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
T Test ◽  
Sentence Recognition ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Adaptive Compression ◽  
Fast Acting

AbstractWide dynamic range compression (WDRC) has been widely used in hearing aid technology. However, several reports indicate that WDRC may improve audibility at the expense of speech intelligibility. As such, a modified amplification compression scheme, named adaptive compression, was developed. However, the effect of compression strategies on speech perception in pediatric hearing aid users has not been clearly reported.The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of adaptive compression and fast-acting WDRC processing strategies on sentence recognition in noise with Mandarin, pediatric hearing aid users.This study was set up using a double-blind, within-subject, repeated-measures design.Twenty-six children who spoke Mandarin Chinese as their primary language and had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss participated in the study.Sentence recognition in noise was evaluated in behind-the-ear technology with both adaptive compression processing and fast-acting WDRC processing and was selected randomly for each child. Percent correct sentence recognition in noise with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression was collected from each participant. Correlation analysis was performed to examine the effect of gender, age at assessment, and hearing threshold of the better ear on signal-to-noise ratio, and a paired-samples t test was employed to compare the performance of the adaptive compression strategy and fast-acting WDRC processing.The mean percentage correct of sentence recognition in noise with behind-the-ear technology with fast-acting WDRC and adaptive compression processing were 62.24% and 68.71%, respectively. The paired-samples t test showed that the performance of the adaptive compression strategy was significantly better than the fast-acting WDRC processing (t = 3.190, p = 0.004).Compared with the fast-acting WDRC, adaptive compression provided better sentence recognition in noise for Mandarin pediatric hearing aid users.

Improving Hearing Performance for Cochlear Implant Recipients with Use of a Digital, Wireless, Remote-Microphone, Audio-Streaming Accessory

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (06) ◽  
pp. 532-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Morais ◽  
Erin Schafer
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Audio Signals ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Accessory Device ◽  
Sound Processor

Background: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients experience difficulty understanding speech in noise. Remote-microphone technology that improves the signal-to-noise ratio is recognized as an effective means to improve speech recognition in noise; however, there are no published studies evaluating the potential benefits of a wireless, remote-microphone, digital, audio-streaming accessory device (heretofore referred to as a remote-microphone accessory) designed to deliver audio signals directly to a CI sound processor. Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare speech recognition in quiet and in noise of recipients while using their CI alone and with a remote-microphone accessory. Research Design: A two-way repeated measures design was used to evaluate performance differences obtained in quiet and in increasing levels of competing noise with the CI sound processor alone and with the sound processor paired to the remote microphone accessory. Study Sample: Sixteen users of Cochlear Nucleus 24 Freedom, CI512, and CI422 implants were included in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were evaluated in 14 conditions including use of the sound processor alone and with the remote-microphone accessory in quiet and at the following signal levels: 65 dBA speech (at the location of the participant; 85 dBA at the location of the remote microphone) in quiet and competing noise at 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise levels. Speech recognition was evaluated in each of these conditions with one full list of AzBio sentences. Results: Speech recognition in quiet and in all competing noise levels, except the 75 dBA condition, was significantly better with use of the remote-microphone accessory compared with participants’ performance with the CI sound processor alone. As expected, in all technology conditions, performance was significantly poorer as the competing noise level increased. Conclusions: Use of a remote-microphone accessory designed for a CI sound processor provides superior speech recognition in quiet and in noise when compared with performance obtained with the CI sound processor alone.

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.

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.

The Impact of Listening with Directional Microphone Technology on Self-Perceived Localization Disabilities and Handicaps

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (09) ◽  
pp. 794-808
Author(s):  
Melissa N. Ruscetta ◽  
Catherine V. Palmer ◽  
John D. Durrant ◽  
Judith Grayhack ◽  
Carey Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Group Versus ◽  
Toggle Switch ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Calidad De Vida ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Localization Ability ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Los Grupos

The chief complaint of individuals with hearing impairment is difficulty hearing in noise, with directional microphones emerging as the most capable remediation. Our purpose was to determine the impact of directional microphones on localization disability and concurrent handicap. Fifty-seven individuals participated unaided and then in groups of 19, using omni-directional microphones, directional-microphones, or toggle-switch equipped amplification. The outcome measure was a localization disabilities and handicaps questionnaire. Comparisons between the unaided group versus the aided groups, and the directional-microphone groups versus the other two aided groups revealed no significant differences. None of the microphone schemes either increased or decreased self-perceived localization disability or handicap. Objective measures of localization ability are warranted and if significance is noted, clinicians should caution patients when moving in their environment. If no significant objective differences exist, in light of the subjective findings in this investigation concern over decreases in quality of life and safety with directional microphones need not be considered. La principal queja de los individuos con trastornos auditivos es la dificultad para escuchar en medio de ruido, emergiendo los micrófonos direccionales como el más capaz remedio. Nuestro propósito fue determinar el impacto de los micrófonos direccionales en la incapacidad de localización y en los impedimentos concurrentes. Cincuenta y siete individuos participaron sin amplificación y luego, en grupos de 19, utilizando micrófonos omni-direccionales, micrófonos direccionales, o amplificación equipada con interruptores de palanca. La medida de resultado fue un cuestionario de discapacidades e impedimentos de localización. Las comparaciones entre el grupo sin amplificación versus los grupos con amplificación, y entre el grupo con micrófono direccional versus los otros dos grupos con amplificación no revelaron diferencias significativas. Ninguno de los esquemas de micrófono aumentó o disminuyó la discapacidad o el impedimento auto-percibido de localización. Las medidas objetivas de la habilidad de localización se garantizan y si se llega a notar algo significativo, los clínicos deberían advertir a los pacientes cuando se desplacen en sus ambientes. Si no existen diferencias objetivas significativas, a la luz de los hallazgos subjetivos de esta investigación, no debe considerarse ninguna preocupación sobre la disminución de la calidad de vida o la seguridad con el uso de micrófonos direccionales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document