Literature DB >> 25597460

Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise.

Elizabeth R Kolberg1, Sterling W Sheffield1, Timothy J Davis1, Linsey W Sunderhaus1, René H Gifford1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in cochlear implants (CIs), CI recipients continue to experience significant communicative difficulty in background noise. Many potential solutions have been proposed to help increase signal-to-noise ratio in noisy environments, including signal processing and external accessories. To date, however, the effect of microphone location on speech recognition in noise has focused primarily on hearing aid users.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to (1) measure physical output for the T-Mic as compared with the integrated behind-the-ear (BTE) processor mic for various source azimuths, and (2) to investigate the effect of CI processor mic location for speech recognition in semi-diffuse noise with speech originating from various source azimuths as encountered in everyday communicative environments. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A repeated-measures, within-participant design was used to compare performance across listening conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 11 adults with Advanced Bionics CIs were recruited for this study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Physical acoustic output was measured on a Knowles Experimental Mannequin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) for the T-Mic and BTE mic, with broadband noise presented at 0 and 90° (directed toward the implant processor). In addition to physical acoustic measurements, we also assessed recognition of sentences constructed by researchers at Texas Instruments, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Stanford Research Institute (TIMIT sentences) at 60 dBA for speech source azimuths of 0, 90, and 270°. Sentences were presented in a semi-diffuse restaurant noise originating from the R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker array. Signal-to-noise ratio was determined individually to achieve approximately 50% correct in the unilateral implanted listening condition with speech at 0°. Performance was compared across the T-Mic, 50/50, and the integrated BTE processor mic.
RESULTS: The integrated BTE mic provided approximately 5 dB attenuation from 1500-4500 Hz for signals presented at 0° as compared with 90° (directed toward the processor). The T-Mic output was essentially equivalent for sources originating from 0 and 90°. Mic location also significantly affected sentence recognition as a function of source azimuth, with the T-Mic yielding the highest performance for speech originating from 0°.
CONCLUSIONS: These results have clinical implications for (1) future implant processor design with respect to mic location, (2) mic settings for implant recipients, and (3) execution of advanced speech testing in the clinic. American Academy of Audiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25597460      PMCID: PMC4446721          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.1.6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  16 in total

1.  In-the-canal versus behind-the-ear microphones improve spatial discrimination on the side of the head in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Georgios Mantokoudis; Martin Kompis; Mattheus Vischer; Rudolf Häusler; Marco Caversaccio; Pascal Senn
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS).

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr; Philipos C Loizou; Cindy J Dana; Jennifer S Schmidt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Sarah E King; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Laura K Holden; Michael Strube
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  The benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recognition of speech, voice and melodies.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford; Anthony J Spahr; Sharon A McKarns
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Sterling W Sheffield; Kate Teece; Amy P Olund
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Speech perception for adult cochlear implant recipients in a realistic background noise: effectiveness of preprocessing strategies and external options for improving speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Lawrence J Revit
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 7.  Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

8.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise: hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Van Summers; Matthew J Makashay; Sarah M Theodoroff; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Effect of hearing aid bandwidth on speech recognition performance of listeners using a cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal hearing).

Authors:  Arlene C Neuman; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  9 in total

1.  The Effect of Microphone Placement on Interaural Level Differences and Sound Localization Across the Horizontal Plane in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Heath G Jones; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Isabelle Mosnier; Nathalie Mathias; Jonathan Flament; Dorith Amar; Amelie Liagre-Callies; Stephanie Borel; Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan; Olivier Sterkers; Daniele Bernardeschi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Natale; Sterling W Sheffield; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Mary S Dietrich; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Spatial Release From Masking in Adults With Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Effects of Distracter Azimuth and Microphone Location.

Authors:  Timothy J Davis; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Effect of Microphone Configuration and Sound Source Location on Speech Recognition for Adult Cochlear Implant Users with Current-Generation Sound Processors.

Authors:  Robert T Dwyer; Jillian Roberts; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Acoustic factors affecting interaural level differences for cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Paul G Mayo; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Effect of Microphone Location and Beamforming Technology on Speech Recognition in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; Adrian L Taylor; Linsey W Sunderhaus; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Head Shadow, Summation, and Squelch in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users With Linked Automatic Gain Controls.

Authors:  Taylor A Bakal; Kristina DeRoy Milvae; Chen Chen; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Speech understanding in diffuse steady noise in typically hearing and hard of hearing listeners.

Authors:  Julie Bestel; Elsa Legris; Frédéric Rembaud; Thierry Mom; John J Galvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 3.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.