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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of signal-to-noise ratio on directional microphone benefit and preference

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.     

An objective measure for selecting microphone modes in OMNI/DIR hearing aid circuits

OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown that listener preferences for omnidirectional (OMNI) or directional (DIR) processing in hearing aids depend largely on the characteristics of the listening environment, including the relative locations of the listener, signal sources, and noise sources; and whether reverberation is present. Many modern hearing aids incorporate algorithms to switch automatically between microphone modes based on an analysis of the acoustic environment. Little work has been done, however, to evaluate these devices with respect to user preferences, or to compare the outputs of different signal processing algorithms directly to make informed choices between the different microphone modes. This study describes a strategy for automatically switching between DIR and OMNI microphone modes based on a direct comparison between acoustic speech signals processed by DIR and OMNI algorithms in the same listening environment. In addition, data are shown regarding how a decision to choose one microphone mode over another might change as a function of speech to noise ratio (SNR) and spatial orientation of the listener. DESIGN: Speech and noise signals were presented at a variety of SNR's and in different spatial orientations relative to a listener's head. Monaural recordings, made in both OMNI and DIR microphone processing modes, were analyzed using a model of auditory processing that highlights the spectral and temporal dynamics of speech. Differences between OMNI and DIR processing were expressed in terms of a modified spectrotemporal modulation index (mSTMI) developed specifically for this hearing aid application. Differences in mSTMI values were compared with intelligibility measures and user preference judgments made under the same listening conditions. RESULTS: A comparison between the results of the mSTMI analyses and behavioral data (intelligibility and preference judgments) showed excellent agreement, especially in stationary noise backgrounds. In addition, the mSTMI was found to be sensitive to changes in SNR as well as spatial orientation of the listener relative to signal and noise sources. Subsequent mSTMI analyses on hearing aid recordings obtained from real-life environments with more than one talker and modulated noise backgrounds also showed promise for predicting the preferred microphone setting in varied and complex listening environments.     

Predicting directional hearing aid benefit for individual listeners

The fitting of directional microphone hearing aids is becoming increasingly more routine, and this fitting option has proven to be a successful method to improve speech intelligibility in many noisy listening environments. Data suggest, however, that some hearing-impaired listeners receive significantly more directional benefit than others. It is of interest, therefore, to determine if directional benefit is predictable from identifiable audiologic factors. In this report, we examined whether the slope of audiometric configuration, amount of high-frequency hearing loss, and/or the aided omnidirectional performance for a speech-in-noise intelligibility task could be used to predict the magnitude of directional hearing aid benefit. Overall results obtained from three separate investigations revealed no significant correlation between the slope of audiometric configuration or amount of high-frequency hearing loss and the benefit obtained from directional microphone hearing instruments. Although there was a significant, negative relationship between aided omnidirectional performance and the directional benefit obtained in one study, there was considerable variability among individual participants, and nearly all of the listeners with the best omnidirectional hearing aid performance still received significant additional benefit from directional amplification. These results suggest that audiologists should consider the use of directional amplification for patients regardless of audiogram slope, high-frequency hearing loss, or omnidirectional speech intelligibility score.     

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.     

Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies

The performance of 40 hearing-impaired adults with the GN ReSound digital BZ5 hearing instrument was compared with performance with linear hearing aids with input compression limiting (AGC-I) or two-channel analog wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) instruments. The BZ5 was evaluated with an omnidirectional microphone, dual-microphone directionality, and a noise reduction circuit in combination with dual-microphone directionality. Participants were experienced hearing aid users who were wearing linear AGC-I or analog WDRC instruments at the time of enrolment. Performance was assessed using the Connected Speech Test (CST) presented at several presentation levels and under various conditions of signal degradation and by the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (PHAB). Subjective ratings of speech understanding, listening comfort, and sound quality/naturalness were also obtained using 11-point interval scales. Small performance advantages were observed for WDRC over linear AGC-I, although WDRC did not have to be implemented digitally for these performance advantages to be realized. Substantial performance advantages for the dual microphones over the omnidirectional microphone were observed in the CST results in noise, but participants generally did not perceive these large advantages in everyday listening. The noise reduction circuit provided improved listening comfort but little change in speech understanding.     

Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users

This article investigates the different acoustic signals that hearing aid users are exposed to in their everyday environment. Binaural microphone signals from recording positions close to the microphone locations of behind-the-ear hearing aids were recorded by 20 hearing aid users during daily life. The recorded signals were acoustically analyzed with regard to narrowband short-term level distributions. The subjects also performed subjective assessments of their own recordings in the laboratory using several questions from the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) questionnaire. Both the questionnaire and the acoustic analysis data show that the importance, problems, and hearing aid benefit as well as the acoustic characteristics of the individual situations vary a lot across subjects. Therefore, in addition to a nonlinear hearing aid fitting, further signal classification and signal/situation-adaptive features are highly desirable inside modern hearing aids. These should be compatible with the variability of the individual sound environments of hearing-impaired listeners.     

Noise reduction results of an adaptive filtering technique for dual-microphone behind-the-ear hearing aids

OBJECTIVE: The performance of an adaptive beam-former in a 2-microphone, behind-the-ear hearing aid for speech understanding in noisy environments was evaluated. Physical and perceptual evaluations were carried out. This was the first large-scale test of a wearable real-time implementation of this algorithm. The main perceptual research questions of this study were related to the influence on the noise reduction performance of (1) the spectro-temporal character of the jammer sound, (2) the jammer sound scene, (3) hearing impairment, and (4) the basic microphone configuration in the hearing aid. Four different speech materials were used for the perceptual evaluations. All tests were carried out in an acoustical environment comparable to living room reverberation. DESIGN: The adaptive beamformer was implemented in Audallion, a small, body-worn processor, linked to a Danasound 2-microphone behind-the-ear aid. The strategy was evaluated physically in different acoustical environments. Using speech reception threshold (SRT) measurements, the processing was evaluated perceptually and the different research questions addressed with three groups of subjects. Groups I, II, and III consisted of 10 normal-hearing, 5 hearing-impaired, and 7 normal-hearing persons, respectively. The tests were carried out in three spectro-temporally different jammer sounds (unmodulated and modulated speech weighted noise, multitalker babble) and in three different noise scenarios (single noise source at 90 degrees, noise sources at 90 degrees and 270 degrees relative to speaker position, diffuse noise scene). Two microphone configurations were compared: a device equipped with two omnidirectional microphones and a device equipped with one hardware directional and one omnidirectional microphone. In each of these conditions, the adaptive beamformer and the directional and omnidirectional microphone configurations were tested. RESULTS: The improvement in signal-to-noise ratio from the use of the adaptive beamformer did not depend on the spectro-temporal character of the jammer sounds and the speech materials used, although the absolute levels of the SRTs varied appreciably for different speech-noise combinations. The performance of the adaptive noise reduction depended on the jammer sound scene. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in signal-to-noise ratio improvement was observed between hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners, although individual SRT levels may differ. On average, an SRT improvement of 7.7 and 3.9 dB for a single noise source at 90 degrees and 5.9 and 3.4 dB for two noise sources at 90 degrees and 270 degrees was obtained for both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, using the adaptive beamformer and the directional microphone, respectively, relative to the omnidirectional microphone signal. In diffuse noise, only small improvements were obtained.     

Hearing-in-Noise: comparison of listeners with normal and (aided) impaired hearing

In this study, the performance of 48 listeners with normal hearing was compared to the performance of 46 listeners with documented hearing loss. Various conditions of directional and omnidirectional hearing aid use were studied. The results indicated that when the noise around a listener was stationary, a first- or second-order directional microphone allowed a group of hearing-impaired listeners with mild-to-moderate, bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss to perform similarly to normal hearing listeners on a speech-in-noise task (i.e., they required the same signal-to-noise ratio to achieve 50% understanding). When the noise source was moving around the listener, only the second-order (three-microphone) system set to an adaptive directional response (where the polar pattern changes due to the change in noise location) allowed a group of hearing-impaired individuals with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss to perform similarly to young, normal-hearing individuals.     

Improving speech intelligibility in background noise with an adaptive directional microphone

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.     

Efficacy of directional microphone hearing aids: a meta-analytic perspective

The literature suggests that directional microphone hearing aids (DMHAs) are a viable means for improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for hearing-impaired listeners. The amount of directional advantage they provide, however, remains relatively unclear because of variability observed among individual studies. The present investigation was undertaken in an attempt to establish the degree of advantage provided by DMHAs. Data were synthesized from 72 and 74 experiments, respectively, on omnidirectional hearing aids and DMHAs representing both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. Using a meta-analytic approach, 138 weighted averages were derived for a variety of comparable independent and dependent variables. Comparisons were made for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners. Findings are discussed with regard to their clinical and research implications.     

Directivity quantification in hearing aids: fitting and measurement effects

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of venting, microphone port orientation, and compression on the electroacoustically measured directivity of directional and omnidirectional behind-the-ear hearing aids. In addition, the average directivity provided across three brands of directional and omnidirectional behind-the-ear hearing aids was compared with that provided by the open ear. DESIGN: Three groups of hearing aids (four instruments in each group) representing three commercial models (a total of 12) were selected for electroacoustic evaluation of directivity. Polar directivity patterns were measured and directivity index was calculated across four different venting configurations, and for five different microphone port angles. All measurements were made for instruments in directional and omnidirectional modes. Single source traditional, and two-source modified front-to-back ratios were also measured with the hearing aids in linear and compression modes. RESULTS: The directivity provided by the open (Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research) ear was superior to that of the omnidirectional hearing aids in this study. Although the directivity measured for directional hearing aids was significantly better than that of omnidirectional models, significant variability was measured both within and across the tested models both on average and at specific test frequencies. Both venting and microphone port orientation affected the measured directivity. Although compression reduced the magnitude of traditionally measured front-to-back ratios, no difference from linear amplification was noted using a modified methodology. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in the measured directivity both within and across the directional microphone hearing aid brands suggests that manufacturer's specification of directivity may not provide an accurate index of the actual performance of all individual instruments. The significant impact of venting and microphone port orientation on directivity indicate that these variables must be addressed when fitting directional hearing aids on hearing-impaired listeners. Modified front-to-back ratio results suggest that compression does not affect the directivity of hearing aids, if it is assumed that the signal of interest from one azimuth, and the competing signal from a different azimuth, occur at the same time.     

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.     

Noise reduction technologies implemented in head-worn preprocessors for improving cochlear implant performance in reverberant noise fields

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a multichannel adaptive directional microphone and a modulation-based noise reduction algorithm could enhance cochlear implant performance in reverberant noise fields. A hearing aid was modified to output electrical signals (ePreprocessor) and a cochlear implant speech processor was modified to receive electrical signals (eProcessor). The ePreprocessor was programmed to flat frequency response and linear amplification. Cochlear implant listeners wore the ePreprocessor-eProcessor system in three reverberant noise fields: 1) one noise source with variable locations; 2) three noise sources with variable locations; and 3) eight evenly spaced noise sources from 0° to 360°. Listeners' speech recognition scores were tested when the ePreprocessor was programmed to omnidirectional microphone (OMNI), omnidirectional microphone plus noise reduction algorithm (OMNI?+?NR), and adaptive directional microphone plus noise reduction algorithm (ADM?+?NR). They were also tested with their own cochlear implant speech processor (CI_OMNI) in the three noise fields. Additionally, listeners rated overall sound quality preferences on recordings made in the noise fields. Results indicated that ADM+NR produced the highest speech recognition scores and the most preferable rating in all noise fields. Factors requiring attention in the hearing aid-cochlear implant integration process are discussed.