Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Objective: To evaluate the benefit of a wireless remote microphone (MM) for speech recognition in noise in bimodal adult cochlear implant (CI) users both in a test setting and in daily life. Design: This prospective study measured speech reception thresholds in noise in a repeated measures design with factors including bimodal hearing and MM use. The participants also had a 3-week trial period at home with the MM. Study sample: Thirteen post-lingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. Results: A significant improvement in SRT of 5.4?dB was found between the use of the CI with the MM and the use of the CI without the MM. By also pairing the MM to the hearing aid (HA) another improvement in SRT of 2.2?dB was found compared to the situation with the MM paired to the CI alone. In daily life, participants reported better speech perception for various challenging listening situations, when using the MM in the bimodal condition. Conclusion: There is a clear advantage of bimodal listening (CI and HA) compared to CI alone when applying advanced wireless remote microphone techniques to improve speech understanding in adult bimodal CI users.     

Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate speech recognition in noise and listening effort among a group of adults with cochlear implants (CIs). Two main research questions were addressed. First, what are the effects of omni versus directional microphone configuration on speech recognition and listening effort for noisy conditions? Second, what is the effect of unilateral versus bimodal or bilateral CI listening on speech recognition and listening effort in noisy conditions?

Design: Sixteen adults (mean age 58 years) with CIs participated. Listening effort was measured using a dual-task paradigm and also using a self-reported rating of difficulty scale. In the dual-task measure, participants were asked to repeat monosyllabic words while at the same time press a button in response to a visual stimulus. Participants were tested in two baseline conditions (speech perception alone and visual task alone) and in the following experimental conditions: (1) quiet with an omnidirectional microphone, (2) noise with an omnidirectional microphone, (3) noise with a directional microphone, and (4) noise with a directional microphone and with a second sided CI or hearing aid. When present, the noise was fixed with a +5?dB signal-to-noise ratio. After each listening condition, the participants rated the degree of listening difficulty.

Results: Changing the microphone from omni to directional mode significantly enhanced speech recognition in noise performance. There were no significant changes in speech recognition between the unilateral and bimodal/bilateral CI listening conditions. Listening effort, as measured by reaction time, increased significantly between the baseline and omnidirectional quiet listening condition though did not change significantly across the remaining listening conditions. Self-perceived listening effort revealed a greater effort for the noisy conditions, and reduced effort with the move from an omni to a directional microphone.

Conclusions: Directional microphones significantly improve speech in noise recognition over omnidirectional microphones and allowed for decreased self-perceived listening effort. The dual task used in this study failed to show any differences in listening effort across the experimental conditions and may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in listening effort.     

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: A 6-month comparative study

Conclusions

Our study data demonstrate the additional benefit derived from continued use of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) post-cochlear implantation for speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise. Postoperative bimodal stimulation is recommended for all subjects who show some speech recognition ability in the contralateral ear as it may offer binaural listening advantages in various listening situations encountered in everyday life.

Objectives

To assess the benefits derived from bimodal stimulation for experienced HA users implanted with a cochlear implant (CI) (score?≥?20% in disyllabic test). The correlation between pre- and postoperative performance on speech perception measures was examined to determine additional criteria for recommending bimodal stimulation postoperatively.

Material and methods

A within-subject repeated-measures design was used, with each subject acting as their own control. Assessments were carried out preoperatively in aided monaural and best-aided conditions and at 6 months postoperatively in CI-alone, contralateral HA-alone and bimodal listening conditions. Speech recognition using Spanish words and sentences materials was assessed at conversational level and for soft speech in quiet. Speech comprehension in noise was assessed using word materials at a signal:noise ratio of +10, for coincident speech in noise and for spatially separated speech in noise. Twelve adult native Spanish subjects with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment who were experienced with optimally fitted conventional amplification and who displayed suboptimal speech understanding preoperatively were enrolled in the study. Preoperatively, conventional amplification was worn by five subjects binaurally and by seven monaurally.

Results

Postoperatively, superior speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise for disyllabic words was achieved using bimodal stimulation in comparison to performance for either monaural aided condition. Mean improvement in speech recognition in the bimodal condition was significant over performance in the CI-alone condition for disyllabic words in quiet at 70 (p=0.006) and 55 dB SPL (p=0.028), for disyllabic words in noise at +10 dB with speech and noise spatially separated with the noise source closest to the contralateral HA (S0NHA) (p=0.0005) and when the noise source was closest to the CI ear (S0NCI) (p=0.002). When testing word recognition in noise with speech and noise sources coincident in space, word scores were superior in the bimodal condition relative to the CI-alone condition but this improvement was not significant (p=0.07). The advantages of bimodal stimulation included significant effects of binaural summation in quiet and significant binaural squelch effects in both the S0NHA and S0NCI test conditions. All subjects showed superior performance in the binaural situation postoperatively relative to the best-aided condition preoperatively for one or more test situations.     

Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one- and two-microphone hearing aids

In this study speech intelligibility in background noise was evaluated with 10 binaural hearing-aid users for hearing aids with one omnidirectional microphone and a hearing aid with a two-microphone configuration (enabling an omnidirectional as well as a directional mode). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements were carried out for three different types of background noise (speech-weighted noise, traffic noise and restaurant noise) and two kinds of speech material (bisyllabic word lists and sentences). The average SNR improvement of the directional microphone configuration relative to the omnidirectional one was 3.4 dB for noise presented from 90 degrees azimuth. This improvement was independent of the specific type of noise and speech material, indicating that one speech-in-noise condition may yield enough relevant information in the evaluation of directional microphones and speech understanding in noise.     

Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids

The improvement in speech recognition in noise obtained with directional microphones compared to omnidirectional microphones is referred to as the directional advantage. Laboratory studies have revealed substantial differences in the magnitude of the directional advantage across hearing-impaired listeners. This investigation examined whether persons who were successful users of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday living tended to obtain a larger directional advantage in the test booth than persons who were unsuccessful users. Results revealed that the mean directional advantage did not differ significantly between patients who used the directional mode regularly and those who reported little or no benefit from directional microphones in daily living and, therefore, tended to leave their hearing aids set in the default omnidirectional mode. Success with directional microphone hearing aids in everyday living, therefore, cannot be reliably predicted by the magnitude of the directional advantage obtained in the clinic.     

Aplicación de la tecnología de enrutamiento inalámbrico contralateral de la señal (CROS) en usuarios de implante coclear unilateral

IntroductionSingle cochlear implantation usually provides substantial speech intelligibility benefits but bilaterally deaf, unilaterally implanted subjects will continue to experience limitations due to the head shadow effect, like single-sided deaf individuals. In the treatment of individuals with single-sided deafness one option is contralateral routing of signal (CROS) devices, which constitute a non-surgical intervention of the second ear in unilaterally implanted individuals.MethodTwelve experienced adult cochlear implant users with Naída Q70 processor and the CROS device used in combination participated in the study. For the study 3 conditions were provided: cochlear implant only, omnidirectional microphone mode (CROS deactivated); cochlear implant plus CROS activated, omnidirectional microphone mode and cochlear implant plus CROS activated, UltraZoom mode. Speech reception thresholds were determined in quiet and noise. Subjective feedback regarding the practical usability of the CROS device and the perceived benefit were collected.ResultsThere was a 27.6% improvement in speech understanding in quiet and 32.5% improvement in noise when CROS device was activated. Using advanced directional microphones, a statistically significant benefit of 35% was obtained. The responses to the questionnaires revealed that the subjects perceived benefit in their everyday lives when using the CROS device with their cochlear implants.ConclusionThe investigated CROS device used by unilateral CI recipients in cases where bilateral implantation is not an option provides both subjective and objective speech recognition benefit when the signal is directed to the CROS device. Unfavourable conditions where speech is presented from the cochlear implant side and noise from the CROS side or diffusely were not included in this evaluation since the CROS device adds additional noise and performance is expected to decrease as has previously been shown.     

Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study

CONCLUSIONS: Our study data demonstrate the additional benefit derived from continued use of a contralateral hearing aid (HA) post-cochlear implantation for speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise. Postoperative bimodal stimulation is recommended for all subjects who show some speech recognition ability in the contralateral ear as it may offer binaural listening advantages in various listening situations encountered in everyday life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits derived from bimodal stimulation for experienced HA users implanted with a cochlear implant (CI) (score=20% in disyllabic test). The correlation between pre- and postoperative performance on speech perception measures was examined to determine additional criteria for recommending bimodal stimulation postoperatively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A within-subject repeated-measures design was used, with each subject acting as their own control. Assessments were carried out preoperatively in aided monaural and best-aided conditions and at 6 months postoperatively in CI-alone, contralateral HA-alone and bimodal listening conditions. Speech recognition using Spanish words and sentences materials was assessed at conversational level and for soft speech in quiet. Speech comprehension in noise was assessed using word materials at a signal:noise ratio of +10, for coincident speech in noise and for spatially separated speech in noise. Twelve adult native Spanish subjects with a severe-to-profound hearing impairment who were experienced with optimally fitted conventional amplification and who displayed suboptimal speech understanding preoperatively were enrolled in the study. Preoperatively, conventional amplification was worn by five subjects binaurally and by seven monaurally. RESULTS: Postoperatively, superior speech recognition ability in quiet and in noise for disyllabic words was achieved using bimodal stimulation in comparison to performance for either monaural aided condition. Mean improvement in speech recognition in the bimodal condition was significant over performance in the CI-alone condition for disyllabic words in quiet at 70 (p=0.006) and 55 dB SPL (p=0.028), for disyllabic words in noise at +10 dB with speech and noise spatially separated with the noise source closest to the contralateral HA (S0NHA) (p=0.0005) and when the noise source was closest to the CI ear (S0NCI) (p=0.002). When testing word recognition in noise with speech and noise sources coincident in space, word scores were superior in the bimodal condition relative to the CI-alone condition but this improvement was not significant (p=0.07). The advantages of bimodal stimulation included significant effects of binaural summation in quiet and significant binaural squelch effects in both the S0NHA and S0NCI test conditions. All subjects showed superior performance in the binaural situation postoperatively relative to the best-aided condition preoperatively for one or more test situations.     

How directional microphones affect speech recognition,listening effort and localisation for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of directional microphone use on laboratory measures of sentence recognition, listening effort and localisation. An additional purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of asymmetric directional microphone use on the same laboratory measures. Design: Three hearing aid conditions were evaluated: (1) bilateral omnidirectional microphones, (2) bilateral directional microphones and (3) asymmetric microphones (directional microphone for only one hearing aid). Sentence recognition performance was evaluated using a connected speech test. Listening effort was evaluated using a dual-task paradigm with a response time-based secondary task requiring word categorisation. Localisation was examined using a complex task requiring localisation and recall of speech originating from one of four loudspeakers in the horizontal plane (?60°, ?45°,?+45°,?+60°). Study sample: Eighteen adults (M?=?61.8 years) with symmetrical, moderate-to-severe hearing loss participated. Results: Performance on each task was analysed separately using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Results revealed directional benefits for sentence recognition and listening effort, but microphone setting did not affect localisation. Performance was equivalent with symmetric and asymmetric directional configurations. Conclusions: Bilateral and asymmetric directional microphone configurations equally improved sentence recognition and listening effort; neither affected localisation or recall.     

Effects of noise source configuration on directional benefit using symmetric and asymmetric directional hearing aid fittings

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of directional processing in hearing aids are well documented in laboratory settings. Likewise, substantial research has shown that speech understanding is optimized in many settings when listening binaurally. Although these findings suggest that speech understanding would be optimized by using bilateral directional technology (e.g., a symmetric directional fitting), recent research suggests similar performance with an asymmetrical fitting (directional in one ear and omnidirectional in the other). The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits of using bilateral directional processing, as opposed to an asymmetric fitting, in environments where the primary speech and noise sources come from different directions. DESIGN: Sixteen older adults with mild-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) were recruited for the study. Aided sentence recognition using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) was assessed in a moderately reverberant room, in three different speech and noise conditions in which the locations of the speech and noise sources were varied. In each speech and noise condition, speech understanding was assessed in four different microphone modes (bilateral omnidirectional mode; bilateral directional mode; directional mode left and omnidirectional mode right; omnidirectional mode left and directional mode right). The benefits and limitations of bilateral directional processing were assessed by comparing HINT thresholds across the various symmetric and asymmetric microphone processing conditions. RESULTS: Study results revealed directional benefit varied based on microphone mode symmetry (i.e., symmetric versus asymmetric directional processing) and the specific speech and noise configuration. In noise configurations in which the speech was located in the front of the listener and the noise was located to the side or surrounded the listener, maximum directional benefit (approximately 3.3 dB) was observed with the symmetric directional fitting. HINT thresholds obtained when using bilateral directional processing were approximately 1.4 dB better than when an asymmetric fitting (directional processing in only one ear) was used. When speech was located on the side of the listener, the use of directional processing on the ear near the speech significantly reduced speech understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Although directional benefit is present in asymmetric fittings, the use of bilateral directional processing optimizes speech understanding in noise conditions in which the speech comes from in front of the listener and the noise sources are located to the side of or surround the listener. In situations in which the speech is located to the side of the listener, the use of directional processing on the ear adjacent to the speaker is likely to reduce speech audibility and thus degrade speech understanding.     

Speech-clarity judgments of hearing-aid-processed speech in noise: Differing polar patterns and acoustic environments

This investigation assessed the extent to which listeners’ preferences for hearing aid microphone polar patterns vary across listening environments, and whether normal-hearing and inexperienced and experienced hearing-impaired listeners differ in such preferences. Paired-comparison judgments of speech clarity (i.e. subjective speech intelligibility) were made monaurally for recordings of speech in noise processed by a commercially available hearing aid programmed with an omnidirectional and two directional polar patterns (cardioid and hypercardioid). Testing environments included a sound-treated room, a living room, and a classroom. Polar-pattern preferences were highly reliable and agreed closely across all three groups of listeners. All groups preferred listening in the sound-treated room over listening in the living room, and preferred listening in the living room over listening in the classroom. Each group preferred the directional patterns to the omnidirectional pattern in all room conditions. We observed no differences in preference judgments between the two directional patterns or between hearing-impaired listeners’ extent of amplification experience. Overall, findings indicate that listeners perceived qualitative benefits from microphones having directional polar patterns.     

Using hearing aid adaptive directional microphones to enhance cochlear implant performance

The goal of this study was to investigate whether adaptive microphone directionality could enhance cochlear implant performance. Speech stimuli were created by fitting a digital hearing aid with programmable omnidirectional (OM), fixed directional (FDM), or adaptive directional (ADM) microphones to KEMAR, and recording the hearing aid output in three noise conditions. The first condition simulated a diffused field with noise sources from five stationary locations, whereas the second and third condition represented one or three non-stationary locations in the back hemifield of KEMAR. Speech was always presented to 0° azimuth and the overall signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was +5 dB in the sound field. Eighteen postlingually deafened cochlear implant users listened to the recorded test materials via the direct audio input of their speech processors. Their speech recognition ability and overall sound quality preferences were assessed and the correlation between the amount of noise reduction and the improvement in speech recognition were calculated. The results indicated that ADM yielded significantly better speech recognition scores and overall sound quality preference than FDM and OM in all three noise conditions and the improvement in speech recognition scores was highly correlated with the amount of noise reduction. Factors influencing the noise level are discussed.     

Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening

Seventeen hearing-impaired adults were fit with omnidirectional/directional hearing aids, which they wore during a four-week trial. For each listening situation encountered in daily living during a total of seven days, participants selected the preferred microphone mode and described the listening situation in terms of five environmental variables, using a paper and pencil form. Results indicated that hearing-impaired adults typically spend the majority of their active listening time in situations with background noise present and surrounding the listener, and the signal source located in front and relatively near. Microphone preferences were fairly evenly distributed across listening situations but differed depending on the characteristics of the listening environment. The omnidirectional mode tended to be preferred in relatively quiet listening situations or, in the presence of background noise, when the signal source was relatively far away. The directional mode tended to be preferred when background noise was present and the signal source was located in front of and relatively near the listener. Results suggest that knowing only signal location and distance and whether background noise is present or absent, omnidirectional/directional hearing aids can be set in the preferred mode in most everyday listening situations. These findings have relevance for counseling patients when to set manually switchable omnidirectional/directional hearing aids in each microphone mode, as well as for the development of automatic algorithms for selecting omnidirectional versus directional microphone processing.     

Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this experiment was to systematically examine hearing aid benefit as measured by speech recognition and self-assessment methods across omnidirectional and directional hearing aid modes. These data were used to compare directional benefit as measured by speech recognition in the laboratory to hearing aid wearer's perceptions of benefit in everyday environments across full-time directional, full-time omnidirectional, and user selectable directional fittings. Identification of possible listening situations that resulted in different self reported hearing aid benefit as a function of microphone type was a secondary objective of this experiment. DESIGN: Fifteen adults with symmetrical, sloping sensorineural hearing loss were fitted bilaterally with in-the-ear (ITE) directional hearing aids. Measures of hearing aid benefit included the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB), the Connected Sentence Test (CST), the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), and a daily use log. Additionally, two new subscales were developed for administration with the PHAB. These subscales were developed to specifically address situations in which directional hearing aids may provide different degrees of benefit than omnidirectional hearing aids. Participants completed these measures in three conditions: omnidirectional only (O), directional only with low-frequency gain compensation (D), and user-selectable directional/omnidirectional (DO). RESULTS: Results from the speech intelligibility in noise testing indicated significantly more hearing aid benefit in directional modes than omnidirectional. PHAB results indicated more benefit on the background noise subscale (BN) in the DO condition than in the O condition; however, this directional advantage was not present for the D condition. Although the reliability of the newly proposed subscales is as yet unknown, the data were interpreted as revealing a directional advantage in situations where the signal of interest was in front of the participant and a directional disadvantage in situations where the signal of interest was behind the listener or localization was required. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory directional benefit is reflected in self-assessment measures that focus on listening in noise when the sound source of interest is in front of the listener. The use of a directional hearing aid mode; however, may have either a positive, a neutral, or a negative impact on hearing aid benefit measured in noisy situations, depending on the specific listening situation.     

Advantages of Binaural Amplification to Acceptable Noise Level of Directional Hearing Aid Users

Objectives

The goal of the present study was to examine whether Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) would be lower (greater acceptance of noise) in binaural listening than in monaural listening condition and also whether meaningfulness of background speech noise would affect ANLs for directional microphone hearing aid users. In addition, any relationships between the individual binaural benefits on ANLs and the individuals'' demographic information were investigated.

Methods

Fourteen hearing aid users (mean age, 64 years) participated for experimental testing. For the ANL calculation, listeners'' most comfortable listening levels and background noise level were measured. Using Korean ANL material, ANLs of all participants were evaluated under monaural and binaural amplification with a counterbalanced order. The ANLs were also compared across five types of competing speech noises, consisting of 1- through 8-talker background speech maskers. Seven young normal-hearing listeners (mean age, 27 years) participated for the same measurements as a pilot testing.

Results

The results demonstrated that directional hearing aid users accepted more noise (lower ANLs) with binaural amplification than with monaural amplification, regardless of the type of competing speech. When the background speech noise became more meaningful, hearing-impaired listeners accepted less amount of noise (higher ANLs), revealing that ANL is dependent on the intelligibility of the competing speech. The individuals'' binaural advantages in ANLs were significantly greater for the listeners with longer experience of hearing aids, yet not related to their age or hearing thresholds.

Conclusion

Binaural directional microphone processing allowed hearing aid users to accept a greater amount of background noise, which may in turn improve listeners'' hearing aid success. Informational masking substantially influenced background noise acceptance. Given a significant association between ANLs and duration of hearing aid usage, ANL measurement can be useful for clinical counseling of binaural hearing aid candidates or unsuccessful users.     

Directivity and noise reduction in hearing aids: speech perception and benefit

Hearing aid.AimTo compare the performance, benefit and satisfaction of users of ITE, CIC and BTE digital hearing aid with noise reduction and omnidirectional and directional microphones.Method34 users of hearing aid were evaluated by means of speech perception in noise tests and APHAB and IOI self assessment questionnaires. Prospective study.ResultsBetter results were obtained by users of ITE, CIC and directional hearing aids, however, no statistical significance was found between the groups.ConclusionDirectivity improved speech perception in noise and benefit in daily life situations.     

正常听力受试者佩戴不同组合全向性与方向性麦克风的效果比较

目的 比较噪声环境下全向性麦克风与自适应方向性麦克风的不同组合佩戴方式对听力正常成年人言语识别率的影响,从而选择最佳的组合佩戴方式.方法 选择20例(40耳)听力正常青年人(男、女各10例)分别按照双耳全向性麦克风模式(组合1),双耳自适应方向性麦克风模式(组合2),一耳全向性麦克风、一耳自适应麦克风模式(组合3)3种方式,在信噪比变化的漫射声场中进行言语识别率测试,从而进行助听效果的评估.结果 组合1、2、3三种方式测出的L50值(50%言语识别率的信噪比)分别为-3.55±2.37 dB,-7.15±2.18 dB,-5.40±2.35 dB,三者之间两两比较差异均有显著统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 噪声环境下无论双耳佩戴自适应方向性麦克风模式还是一耳佩戴自适应方向性麦克风、另一耳佩戴全向性麦克风,其言语识别能力均高于双耳佩戴全向性麦克风模式,且双耳佩戴自适应方向性麦克风模式的言语识别率高于一耳自适应麦克风、一耳全向性麦克风模式.     

Semantic context improves speech intelligibility and reduces listening effort for listeners with hearing impairment

Objective: We investigated whether speech intelligibility and listening effort for hearing-aid users is affected by semantic context and hearing-aid setting. Design: Participants heard target sentences spoken in a reverberant background of cafeteria noise and competing speech. Participants reported each sentence verbally. Eight participants also rated listening effort after each sentence. Sentence topic was either the same as, or different from, the previous target sentence. Study sample: Twenty participants with sensorineural hearing loss were fit binaurally with Signia receiver-in-the-canal hearing aids. Participants performed the task twice: once using the hearing aid’s omnidirectional setting and once using the “Reverberant Room” setting, designed to aid listening in reverberant environments. Results: Participants achieved better speech intelligibility for same-topic than different-topic sentences, and when they used the “Reverberant Room” than the omnidirectional hearing-aid setting. Participants who rated effort showed a reliable reduction in listening effort for same-topic sentences and for the “Reverberant Room” hearing-aid setting. The improvement in speech intelligibility from semantic context (i.e. same-topic compared to different-topic sentences) was greater than the improvement gained from changing hearing-aid setting. Conclusions: These findings highlight the enormous potential of cognitive (specifically, semantic) factors for improving speech intelligibility and reducing perceived listening effort in noise for hearing-aid users.     

Performance of a fully adaptive directional microphone to signals presented from various azimuths

The signal-to-noise ratio advantage of a directional microphone is achieved by reducing the sensitivity of the microphone to sounds from the sides and back. A fully adaptive directional microphone (one that automatically switches between an omnidirectional mode and various directional polar patterns) may allow the achievement of signal-to-noise (SNR) improvement with minimal loss on audibility to sounds that originate from the sides and back. To demonstrate such possibilities, this study compared the soundfield aided thresholds, speech in quiet at different input levels, and speech in noise performance of 17 hearing-impaired participants under three microphone modes (omnidirectional, fixed hypercardioid, and fully [or automatic] adaptive) as the stimuli were presented from 0 degrees to 180 degrees in 45 degrees intervals. The results showed a significant azimuth effect only with the fixed directional microphone. In quiet, the fully adaptive microphone performed similarly as the omnidirectional microphone at all frequencies, input levels, and azimuths. In noise, the fully adaptive microphone achieved similar SNR improvement as the fixed directional microphone. Clinical implications of the results of this study were discussed.     

Field evaluation of an asymmetric directional microphone fitting

Laboratory evidence suggests that an asymmetric microphone fitting (omnidirectional processing in one ear and directional processing in the other) can provide a directional advantage in background noise that is as great, or nearly as great, as that provided by binaural directional processing (Bentler et al, 2004). The present study investigated whether the potential benefit of an asymmetric fitting observed in the laboratory extends to real-life listening. Specifically, ease of listening was compared across a variety of real-life listening situations for asymmetric microphone fittings and bilateral omnidirectional processing. These ratings were compared to determine whether the asymmetric fitting provided an advantage in listening situations in which directional microphone processing is generally preferred and/or a disadvantage in listening situations in which omnidirectional microphone processing is generally preferred. Results suggest that an asymmetric fitting may be a viable option for patients who cannot or do not switch microphone modes.     

Multi-microphone technology for severe-to-profound hearing loss

In this study the potential benefit of hearing instruments with multi-microphone technology was investigated in laboratory and in field tests for users with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Twenty-one experienced hearing aid users were fitted with high-power multi-microphone hearing instruments (Phonak PowerZoom P4 AZ). The following evaluations were performed: (i) adaptive speech test (SRT for HSM sentence test) in quiet and in noise with their own instrument and the test instrument in the omnidirectional (basic program) and directional mode (party noise profound+zoom algorithm). (ii) Paired comparisons of loudness, sound quality and speech intelligibility for both the omni and zoom program. (iii) Questionnaires on satisfaction and self-assessment of communication in different listening conditions (Oldenburg Inventory). Only 10 subjects achieved 50% correct (SRT) on the sentence test in noise (speech 0 degrees/noise 180 degrees) with both their own instrument and the test instrument in the omnidirectional mode. However, 15 subjects succeeded in the SRT measurement in the directional mode. The average SRT improvement of the directional over the omnidirectional mode was 13.7 dB. Loudness was judged 'medium loud' for both listening programs. Sound quality and intelligibility were rated significantly better for the zoom program. Compared to their own instrument users' satisfaction with the test instrument was significantly higher, especially in noisy listening situations.