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.     

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.     

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.     

The robustness of hearing aid microphone preferences in everyday listening environments

Automatic directionality algorithms currently implemented in hearing aids assume that hearing-impaired persons with similar hearing losses will prefer the same microphone processing mode in a specific everyday listening environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the robustness of microphone preferences in everyday listening. Two hearing-impaired persons made microphone preference judgments (omnidirectional preferred, directional preferred, no preference) in a variety of everyday listening situations. Simultaneously, these acoustic environments were recorded through the omnidirectional and directional microphone processing modes. The acoustic recordings were later presented in a laboratory setting for microphone preferences to the original two listeners and other listeners who differed in hearing ability and experience with directional microphone processing. The original two listeners were able to replicate their live microphone preferences in the laboratory with a high degree of accuracy. This suggests that the basis of the original live microphone preferences were largely represented in the acoustic recordings. Other hearing-impaired and normal-hearing participants who listened to the environmental recordings also accurately replicated the original live omnidirectional preferences; however, directional preferences were not as robust across the listeners. When the laboratory rating did not replicate the live directional microphone preference, listeners almost always expressed no preference for either microphone mode. Hence, a preference for omnidirectional processing was rarely expressed by any of the participants to recorded sites where directional processing had been preferred as a live judgment and vice versa. These results are interpreted to provide little basis for customizing automatic directionality algorithms for individual patients. The implications of these findings for hearing aid design are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of two-channel and single-channel compression hearing aids

Eight subjects with bilateral sensorineural hearing losses took part in a trial comparing listening unaided with listening binaurally through two types of hearing aid, aid A and aid B. Both aids incorporated slow-acting automatic gain control (AGC) operating on the whole speech signal. However, aid A also incorporated two-channel syllabic compression. The two aids were chosen to be as similar as possible in other respects, and both were worn behind the ear. Subjects were tested in a counter-balanced order, and had at least 2 weeks of everyday experience with each aid before testing took place. Performance was evaluated in three ways: by measuring speech intelligibility in quiet for sentences at three peak sound levels, 55, 70 and 85 dB SPL; by measuring the level of speech required for 50% intelligibility (called the SRT) of sentences in two levels of speech-shaped noise, 60 and 75 dB SPL; and by administering questionnaires about experience with the aids in everyday life. Both aid A and aid B improved the intelligibility of speech in quiet relative to unaided listening, particularly at the lowest sound level. However, aid A gave lower (i.e., superior) SRTs in speech-shaped noise than aid B or unaided listening. The questionnaires also indicated that aid A gave better performance in noisy situations. The results strongly suggest that two-channel syllabic compression, combined with slow-acting AGC operating on the whole speech signal, can give superior results to slow-acting AGC alone, particularly in noisy situations.     

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.     

Better speech perception in noise with an assistive multimicrophone array for hearing AIDS

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the improvement in speech intelligibility in noise obtained with an assistive real-time fixed endfire array of bidirectional microphones in comparison with an omnidirectional hearing aid microphone in a realistic environment. DESIGN: The microphone array was evaluated physically in anechoic and reverberant conditions. Perceptual tests of speech intelligibility in noise were carried out in a reverberant room, with two types of noise and six different noise scenarios with single and multiple noise sources. Ten normal-hearing subjects and 10 hearing aid users participated. The speech reception threshold for sentences was measured in each test setting for the omnidirectional microphone of the hearing aid and for the hearing aid in combination with the array with one and three active microphones. In addition, the extra improvement of five active array microphones, relative to three, was determined in another group of 10 normal-hearing listeners. RESULTS: Improvements in speech intelligibility in noise obtained with the array relative to an omnidirectional microphone depend on noise scenario and subject group. Improvements up to 12 dB for normal-hearing and 9 dB for hearing-impaired listeners were obtained with three active array microphones relative to an omnidirectional microphone for one noise source at 90 degrees . For three uncorrelated noise sources at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, improvements of approximately 9 dB and 6 dB were obtained for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners, respectively. Even with a single noise source at 45 degrees, benefits of 4 dB were achieved in both subject groups. Five active microphones in the array can provide an additional improvement at 45 degrees of approximately 1 dB, relative to the three-microphone configuration for normal-hearing listeners. CONCLUSIONS: These improvements in signal-to-noise ratio can be of great benefit for hearing aid users, who have difficulties with speech understanding in noisy environments.     

Quantification of directional benefit across different polar response patterns

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

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.     

Use of a digital hearing aid with directional microphones in school-aged children

The efficacy of a digital hearing aid with a directional microphone was examined in a school-aged population. Twenty children (9 with a mild-to-moderately-severe hearing loss and 11 with a moderate-to-severe hearing loss) between 7 1/2 and 13 2/3 years of age wore the study hearing aids binaurally for 30 days prior to the evaluation. The testing protocol included speech recognition tests using the CID W-22 word lists presented at 72 dB SPL, 65 dB SPL, and 52 dB SPL (at 0 degrees azimuth) in the presence of a 65 dB SPL party noise (180 degrees azimuth). Subjective rating of hearing aid efficacy in the classroom was examined using the Listening Inventory For Education (LIFE) questionnaire. Parental impression on hearing aid efficacy was also collected at the end of the study. The results showed improved speech recognition in noise with the digital directional hearing aid at all presentation levels. Preference for the digital directional hearing aids over the subjects' own omnidirectional analog hearing aids was also seen on the LIFE questionnaire and parental impression. The degree of hearing loss did not seem to have affected the benefits offered by the digital directional hearing aids. These results were compared to results from other studies on the use of directional microphones in hearing aids.     

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.     

Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid

Differences in performance between unaided and aided performance (omnidirectional and directional) were measured using an open-fit behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Twenty-six subjects without prior experience with amplification were fitted bilaterally using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the fitting parameters were fine-tuned, based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between unaided and aided (omnidirectional and directional) were assessed by measuring reception thresholds for sentences (RTS in dB), using HINT sentences presented at 0 degrees with R-Space restaurant noise held constant at 65dBA and presented via eight loudspeakers set 45 degrees apart. In addition, the APHAB was administered to assess subjective impressions of the experimental aid. Results revealed that significant differences in RTS (in dB) were present between directional and omnidirectional performance, as well as directional and unaided performance. Aided omnidirectional performance, however, was not significantly different from unaided performance. These findings suggest for the hearing aids and experimental condition used in this study, a patient would require directional microphones in order to perform significantly better than unaided or aided with omnidirectional microphones, and that performance with an omnidirectional microphone would not be significantly better than unaided. Finally, the APHAB-aided scores were significantly better than unaided scores for the EC, BN, RV, and AV subscales indicating the subjects, on average, perceived the experimental aid to provide significantly better performance than unaided, and that aided performance was more aversive than unaided.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of compression and hearing aid style on directional hearing aid benefit and performance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of low-threshold compression and hearing aid style (in-the-ear [ITE] versus behind-the-ear [BTE]) on the directional benefit and performance of commercially available directional hearing aids. DESIGN: Forty-seven adult listeners with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss were fit bilaterally with one BTE and four different ITE hearing aids. Speech recognition performance was measured through the Connected Speech Test (CST) and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for a simulated noisy restaurant environment. RESULTS: For both the HINT and CST, speech recognition performance was significantly greater for subjects fit with directional in comparison with omnidirectional microphone hearing aids. Performance was significantly poorer for the BTE instrument in comparison with the ITE hearing aids when using omnidirectional microphones. No differences were found for directional benefit between compression and linear fitting schemes. CONCLUSIONS: No systematic relationship was found between the relative directional benefit and hearing aid style; however, the speech recognition performance of the subjects was somewhat predictable based on Directivity Index measures of the individual hearing aid models. The fact that compression did not interact significantly with microphone type agrees well with previously reported electroacoustic data.