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.     

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.     

Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics.

In this study, two types of hearing aids were used. Both aids had the same frequency characteristics for frontal sound, but one employed an omnidirectional microphone and the other a directional microphone. The frequency characteristics of both hearing aids were measured for five azimuths on KEMAR and in situ in 12 normal-hearing subjects. For these subjects we also determined the speech reception threshold (SRT) with background noise in two rooms with different reverberation times. The direction of the speech stimuli was always frontal; the direction of the noise was varied. Additionally, directional hearing was measured with short noise bursts from eight loudspeakers surrounding the subject. In the less reverberant room, sounds coming from behind were less amplified by the hearing aid with the directional microphone than by the one with the omnidirectional microphone. In this room the monaural SRT values were largely determined by the level of the background noise. For the directional hearing aids there was an extra binaural advantage which depended on the direction of the background noise. Only for low-frequency noise bursts was directional hearing better with directional hearing aids. In the more reverberant room, no distinct differences between the frequency characteristics of the two hearing aid types were measured. However, a systematic difference between monaural SRT values measured through the two hearing aids was found. This difference was independent of noise azimuth. In conclusion, hearing aid(s) with a directional microphone showed no disadvantages and clear advantages under specific conditions.     

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.     

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.     

A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients

Abstract

To evaluate whether speech recognition in noise differs according to whether a wireless remote microphone is connected to just the cochlear implant (CI) or to both the CI and to the hearing aid (HA) in bimodal CI users. The second aim was to evaluate the additional benefit of the directional microphone mode compared with the omnidirectional microphone mode of the wireless microphone. This prospective study measured Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) in babble noise in a ‘within-subjects repeated measures design’ for different listening conditions. Eighteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal CI users. No difference in speech recognition in noise in the bimodal listening condition was found between the wireless microphone connected to the CI only and to both the CI and the HA. An improvement of 4.1?dB was found for switching from the omnidirectional microphone mode to the directional mode in the CI only condition. The use of a wireless microphone improved speech recognition in noise for bimodal CI users. The use of the directional microphone mode led to a substantial additional improvement of speech perception in noise for situations with one target signal.     

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.     

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.     

The effects of changes in head angle on auditory and visual input for omnidirectional and directional microphone hearing aids

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0 degrees, 20 degrees, and 40 degrees. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20 degrees and 40 degrees head angles when compared to 0 degrees. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20 degrees head angle when compared to 0 degrees. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40 degrees head angle when compared to 0 degrees. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.     

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.     

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.     

Predictive measures of directional benefit part 2: verification of different approaches to estimating directional benefit

OBJECTIVE: In this investigation, the relation between various directivity measures and subject performance with directional microphone hearing aids was determined. DESIGN: Test devices included first- and second-order directional microphones. Recordings of sentences and noise (Hearing in Noise Test, HINT) were made through each test device in simple, complex, and anisotropic background noise conditions. Twenty-six subjects, with normal hearing, were administered the HINT test recordings and directional benefit was computed. These measures were correlated to theoretical, free-field, and Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) directivity index (DI) values, as well as front-to-back ratios (FBR), in situ signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), and a newly proposed Db SNR, wherein a predictive value of the SNR improvement is calculated as a function of the noise source incidence. RESULTS: The different predictive scores showed high correlation to the measured directional benefit scores in the complex (diffuse-like) background noise condition (r = 0.89 to 0.97, p < 0.05) but not across all background noise conditions (r = 0.45 to 0.97, p < 0.05). The Db SNR approach and the in situ SNR measures provided excellent prediction of subject performance in all background noise conditions (0.85 to 0.97, p < 0.05). None of the predictive measures could account for the effects of reverberation on the speech signal (r = 0.35 to 0.40, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For environments that included a discrete number of noise sources, the in situ SNR and Db SNR estimates were most predictive of subject performance. No predictive approach was indicative of the directional benefit achieved when the speech was also subjected to reverberation (temporal distortion). This finding has implications for real-world estimates of directional benefit.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Speech recognition and comfort using hearing instruments with adaptive directional characteristics in asymmetric listening conditions

OBJECTIVE: Hearing instruments with adaptive directional microphone systems attempt to maximize speech-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thereby improve speech recognition in noisy backgrounds. When instruments with adaptive systems are fitted bilaterally, there is the potential for adverse effects as they operate independently and may give confusing cues or disturbing effects. The present study compared speech recognition performance in 16 listeners fitted bilaterally with the Phonak Claro hearing instrument using omni-directional, fixed directional, and adaptive directional microphone settings as well as mixed microphone settings (an omni-directional microphone on one side and an adaptive directional microphone on the other). DESIGN: Under anechoic conditions, speech was always presented from a loudspeaker directly in front of the listener (0 degree azimuth) whereas noise was presented from one or two loudspeakers arranged either symmetrically (0, 180, 90 + 270 degrees) or asymmetrically (170 + 240 degrees and 120 + 190 degrees) in the horizontal plane. Adaptive sentence recognition in noise measurement was supplemented by quality ratings. RESULTS: With symmetrical omni-directional settings (Omni/Omni), performance was poorer than a control group of 14 listeners with normal hearing tested unaided: Aided listeners required 4.3 dB more favorable SNR for criterion performance. In all loudspeaker arrangements in which directional characteristics could be exploited, performance with symmetrical adaptive microphones (Adapt/Adapt) was similar to the control group. The mixed microphone settings did not appear to confer any particular disadvantage for speech recognition from their asymmetric nature, always giving scores significantly better than Omni/Omni. Quality rating scores were consistent with speech recognition performance, showing benefits in terms of clarity and comfort for the Adapt/Adapt and Fixed/Fixed microphone conditions over the Omni/Omni and mixed microphone conditions wherever directional characteristics could be used. Similarly, the mixed microphone conditions were rated more comfortable and quieter for the noise than Omni/Omni. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that bilateral hearing instruments with adaptive directional microphones confer benefits in terms of speech recognition in noise and sound quality. Independence of the two adaptive control systems does not appear to cause untoward effects.     

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.     

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.     

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.