Benefits in Speech Recognition in Noise with Remote Wireless Microphones in Group Settings

Background Although hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) can provide significant benefits to persons with hearing loss, users frequently report difficulty hearing in noisy environments, particularly when there are multiple talkers. Little is known about the benefits provided by currently available wireless microphones in multitalker situations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits received in speech recognition in noise by adults with hearing loss when using two different wireless microphone types in a simulated group setting. Research Design A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used where performance in a control condition, HA/CI alone, was compared with performance in two wireless microphone intervention conditions. Study Sample Participants included ten listeners, aged 20-92 years, with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were experienced HA or CI users. Intervention The two wireless microphones by Phonak, Roger Pen, and Roger Select used the same digital modulation protocol to transmit the signal to compatible receivers. However, the Roger Pen operated in a fixed omnidirectional mode, whereas the Roger Select operated in an adaptive directional mode. Data Collection and Analysis Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented in restaurant noise in three conditions: HA/CI alone, HA/CI with a Roger Pen, or HA/CI with a Roger Select microphone placed in the center of a round table. Sentences were presented from one of five loudspeakers equally spaced with the participant, while restaurant noise was presented on each side at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), including +5, 0, −5, and −10 dB. A two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed with main effects of listening condition and noise level. Results Significantly greater speech recognition performance was achieved with the wireless microphones than with listening with just the HA or CI. Furthermore, at the −5- and −10-dB SNR conditions, the Roger Select resulted in significantly better performance than the Roger Pen microphone. Conclusions The results suggest that the Roger Select microphone can provide significant benefits in speech recognition in noise over the use of HA/CI alone (61%) and also significant benefits over the use of a Roger Pen (16%) in a simulated group dining experience.

Application of Digital Remote Wireless Microphone Technology in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Recipients

Background Previous research showed benefits of remote wireless technology in bilaterally moderate- to-severe hearing-impaired participants provided with hearing aid(s), cochlear implant(s) (CIs), or bimodal devices as well as in single-sided deaf (SSD) cochlear implant recipients (with CI from Cochlear™) and normal-hearing (NH) participants. Purpose To evaluate the effect of the digital remote wireless microphone system, Roger™, on speech recognition at different levels of multisource noise in SSD CI recipients using MED-EL CI sound processor OPUS 2. Outcomes were assessed as a function of the listening condition (NH only, NH + CI, NH + CIRog, NHRog + CI, and NHRog + CIRog), Roger™ receiver type (Roger™ Focus for NH; Roger™ Xand Roger™ MyLink for CI) and accessory mixing ratio. Study Sample Eleven adult, SSD participants aided with CI from MED-EL. Data Collection and Analysis Speech recognition in noise was assessed in two no-Roger™ conditions, one Roger™ X condition, and two Roger™ MyLink conditions. For the Roger™ X and no-Roger™ conditions, speech recognition was tested at 60.3 dB(A) with the Oldenburg Sentence Test in classroom noise at levels of 55, 65, and 75 dB(A). For the two Roger™ MyLink conditions, speech recognition at 60.3 dB(A) was measured at a noise level of 75 dB(A). Roger™ X was assessed with an accessory mixing ratio of 1:1 (summation of unattenuated microphone and audio accessory input). For Roger™ MyLink, two accessory mixing ratios were investigated, MT (1:1, summation of unattenuated microphone and telecoil input) and T with maximum attenuation of microphone input. Results Speech recognition at higher noise levels (65 and 75 dB(A)) improved significantly with Roger™ in both unilateral use conditions (NH + CIRog and NHRog + CI) as well as bilateral use condition (NHRog + CIRog). Both the bilateral application of Roger™ and the unilateral Roger™ application on the NH ear outperformed the Roger™ application on CI alone. There was no statistically significant effect of type of CI Roger™ receiver (Roger™ X or Roger™ MyLink) and the accessory mixing ratio (MT or T) on speech recognition. Conclusions Speech recognition for distant speakers in multisource noise improved significantly with the application of Roger™ in SSD CI recipients. Both the unilateral Roger™ application on the NH ear or the CI as well as the bilateral Roger™ application can be recommended.

Speech Recognition in Noise in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Recipients Using Digital Remote Wireless Microphone Technology

Previous research in cochlear implant (CI) recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss showed improvements in speech recognition in noise using remote wireless microphone systems. However, to our knowledge, no previous studies have addressed the benefit of these systems in CI recipients with single-sided deafness.The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential improvement in speech recognition in noise for distant speakers in single-sided deaf (SSD) CI recipients obtained using the digital remote wireless microphone system, Roger. In addition, we evaluated the potential benefit in normal hearing (NH) participants gained by applying this system.Speech recognition in noise for a distant speaker in different conditions with and without Roger was evaluated with a two-way repeated-measures design in each group, SSD CI recipients, and NH participants. Post hoc analyses were conducted using pairwise comparison t-tests with Bonferroni correction.Eleven adult SSD participants aided with CIs and eleven adult NH participants were included in this study.All participants were assessed in 15 test conditions (5 listening conditions × 3 noise levels) each. The listening conditions for SSD CI recipients included the following: (I) only NH ear and CI turned off, (II) NH ear and CI (turned on), (III) NH ear and CI with Roger 14, (IV) NH ear with Roger Focus and CI, and (V) NH ear with Roger Focus and CI with Roger 14. For the NH participants, five corresponding listening conditions were chosen: (I) only better ear and weaker ear masked, (II) both ears, (III) better ear and weaker ear with Roger Focus, (IV) better ear with Roger Focus and weaker ear, and (V) both ears with Roger Focus. The speech level was fixed at 65 dB(A) at 1 meter from the speech-presenting loudspeaker, yielding a speech level of 56.5 dB(A) at the recipient's head. Noise levels were 55, 65, and 75 dB(A). Digitally altered noise recorded in school classrooms was used as competing noise. Speech recognition was measured in percent correct using the Oldenburg sentence test.In SSD CI recipients, a significant improvement in speech recognition was found for all listening conditions with Roger (III, IV, and V) versus all no-Roger conditions (I and II) at the higher noise levels (65 and 75 dB[A]). NH participants significantly benefited from the application of Roger in noise for higher levels, too. In both groups, no significant difference was detected between any of the different listening conditions at 55 dB(A) competing noise. There was also no significant difference between any of the Roger conditions III, IV, and V across all noise levels.The application of the advanced remote wireless microphone system, Roger, in SSD CI recipients provided significant benefits in speech recognition for distant speakers at higher noise levels. In NH participants, the application of Roger also produced a significant benefit in speech recognition in noise.

Perception of Auditory Distance in Normal-Hearing and Moderate-to-Profound Hearing-Impaired Listeners

The auditory system allows the estimation of the distance to sound-emitting objects using multiple spatial cues. In virtual acoustics over headphones, a prerequisite to render auditory distance impression is sound externalization, which denotes the perception of synthesized stimuli outside of the head. Prior studies have found that listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are able to perceive auditory distance and are sensitive to externalization. However, this ability may be degraded by certain factors, such as non-linear amplification in hearing aids or the use of a remote wireless microphone. In this study, 10 normal-hearing and 20 moderate-to-profound hearing-impaired listeners were instructed to estimate the distance of stimuli processed with different methods yielding various perceived auditory distances in the vicinity of the listeners. Two different configurations of non-linear amplification were implemented, and a novel feature aiming to restore a sense of distance in wireless microphone systems was tested. The results showed that the hearing-impaired listeners, even those with a profound hearing loss, were able to discriminate nearby and far sounds that were equalized in level. Their perception of auditory distance was however more contracted than in normal-hearing listeners. Non-linear amplification was found to distort the original spatial cues, but no adverse effect on the ratings of auditory distance was evident. Finally, it was shown that the novel feature was successful in allowing the hearing-impaired participants to perceive externalized sounds with wireless microphone systems.

Benefits in Speech Recognition in Noise with Remote Wireless Microphones in Group Settings

Background: Although hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) can provide significant benefits topersons with hearing loss, users frequently report difficulty hearing in noisy environments, particularlywhen there are multiple talkers. Little is known about the benefits provided by currently available wirelessmicrophones in multitalker situations.<br />Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the benefits received in speech recognition in noiseby adults with hearing loss when using two different wireless microphone types in a simulated groupsetting.<br />Research Design: A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used where performance in acontrol condition, HA/CI alone, was compared with performance in two wireless microphone interventionconditions.<br />Study Sample: Participants included ten listeners, aged 20–92 years, with bilateral sensorineural hearingloss who were experienced HA or CI users.<br />Intervention: The two wireless microphones by Phonak, Roger Pen, and Roger Select used the samedigital modulation protocol to transmit the signal to compatible receivers. However, the Roger Pen operatedin a fixed omnidirectional mode, whereas the Roger Select operated in an adaptive directionalmode.<br />Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test sentences presentedin restaurant noise in three conditions: HA/CI alone, HA/CI with a Roger Pen, or HA/CI with aRoger Select microphone placed in the center of a round table. Sentences were presented from oneof five loudspeakers equally spaced with the participant, while restaurant noise was presented on eachside at four signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), including +5, 0, -5, and -10 dB. A two-way, repeated-measuresanalysis of variance was performed with main effects of listening condition and noise level.<br />Results: Significantly greater speech recognition performance was achieved with the wireless microphonesthan with listening with just the HA or CI. Furthermore, at the -5 and -10 dB SNR conditions,the Roger Select resulted in significantly better performance than the Roger Pen microphone.<br />Conclusions: The results suggest that the Roger Select microphone can provide significant benefits inspeech recognition in noise over the use of HA/CI alone (61 percent) and also significant benefits over the useof a Roger Pen (16 percent) in a simulated group-dining experience.<br />

BENTUK DAN PERUBAHAN FUNGSI SENI PERTUNJUKAN TARI OPAK ABANG DESA PASIGITAN KECAMATAN BOJA KABUPATEN KENDAL

Tari Opak Abang merupakan tarian rakyat yang berasal dari Desa Pasigitan, Kecamatan Boja, Kabupaten Kendal. Peneliti tertarik dengan bentuk dan fungsi pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang karena Tari Opak Abang memiliki banyak amanat di dalam syair lagunya. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif. Teknik keabsahan data yang digunakan adalah triangulasi. Analisis data yang digunakan terdiri dari tiga alur, yaitu: reduksi data, penyajian data, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan yaitu teknik observasi, wawancara, dan dokumentasi. Hasil penelitian mengemukakan bahwa Tari Opak Abang berkembang di Desa Pasigitan sejak tahun 1956. Pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang memiliki 4 urutan sajian, yaitu: 1) Gayung Seribu Gayung; 2) Opak-Opak; 3) Terang Bulan; dan 4) Bunga Rampai. Tari Opak Abang memiliki tema keagamaan dan perjuangan. Gerak Tari Opak Abang merupakan gerak murni. Iringan Tari Opak Abang menggunakan nada diatonis dengan alat musik rebana 2 buah, bass drum 1 buah, kecrek 1 buah, dan biola/violin 1 buah. Tata rias Tari Opak Abang menggunakan rias korektif, dengan atribut busana berupa 1) Plisir (irah-irahan) dengan bulu mentok di ujung; 2) Selempang; 3) Slepe (sabuk); 4) Baju lengan panjang; 5) Celana panjang; 6) Kaos kaki berwarna putih; 7) Kain songket; 8) Sampur/Selendang; 9) Kipas dari kertas emas untuk telinga; 10) Kacamata hitam; dan 11) Kain penutup kepala. Pementasan Tari Opak Abang menggunakan halaman rumah warga dengan pencahayaan general light dan lampu bohlam putih. Tata suara pada pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang menggunakan sound system berupa wireless, keyboard amplifier, dan wireless microphone. Penari Tari Opak Abang berjumlah 4 orang, dan pemusik sekaligus sindhen berjumlah 7 orang. Penonton yang menikmati pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang berasal dari semua kalangan, baik yang awam atau berkecimpung dalam dunia seni tari. Pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang berfungsi sebagai sarana hiburan, akan tetapi pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang juga mengalami perubahan pada beberapa fungsi lainnya dalam kurun tahun 1956 hingga tahun 2017, yaitu: sarana upacara, sarana pertunjukan, syiar agama Islam, dan media informasi seputar kemerdekaan Indonesia.Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dan pembahasan, penulis memberikan saran untuk bentuk pertunjukan Tari Opak Abang agar menambah variasi gerakan dengan tempo yang bervariasi agar pertunjukan terlihat lebih menarik. Tari Opak Abang sebaiknya tidak hanya digunakan sebagai sajian hiburan, melainkan bisa ditampilkan untuk propaganda ketika pemilu kepala daerah Kabupaten Kendal