Literature DB >> 36155821

[Influence of directional microphones on listening effort in middle ear implant users].

Daniela Hollfelder1, Lukas Prein2, Tim Jürgens2, Anke Leichtle3, Karl-Ludwig Bruchhage3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Besides speech intelligibility, subjective listening effort is an important outcome for the success of hearing devices and their signal processing. The aim of the present study was to determine subjective listening effort for speech in a noisy background in patients with the active middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) for omnidirectional and directional microphone settings, with and without occlusion of the contralateral ear.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients using a VSB were measured using the adaptive categorical listening effort scaling (ACALES) method in a ring of loudspeakers placed in an anechoic room. Different background noises from different directions and simultaneously presented sentences from the Oldenburg sentence test were combined in four different realistic acoustic scenes.
RESULTS: The directional microphone program reduced median subjective listening effort only numerically compared to the omnidirectional microphone program in acoustic scenarios with diffuse noise and with low signal-to-noise ratios; however, this difference failed to reach statistical significance. When occluding the ear contralateral to the VSB, all investigated listening effort categories were measured at significantly higher signal-to-noise ratios than with access to both ears.
CONCLUSION: Due to missing statistical significance in reduction of listening effort, this study delivered no recommendation for or against usage of the directional microphone program; however, reduced listening effort was shown for binaural listening in comparison to monaural listening. Therefore, patients should be encouraged to always listen with both ears for best results.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Binaural hearing; Burden of listening; Hearing loss; Microphone technology; Spatial hearing; Vibrant soundbridge

Year:  2022        PMID: 36155821     DOI: 10.1007/s00106-022-01223-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HNO        ISSN: 0017-6192            Impact factor:   1.330


  10 in total

1.  Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids.

Authors:  Heleen Luts; Koen Eneman; Jan Wouters; Michael Schulte; Matthias Vormann; Michael Buechler; Norbert Dillier; Rolph Houben; Wouter A Dreschler; Matthias Froehlich; Henning Puder; Giso Grimm; Volker Hohmann; Arne Leijon; Anthony Lombard; Dirk Mauler; Ann Spriet
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Estimation of Signal-to-Noise Ratios in Realistic Sound Scenarios.

Authors:  Karolina Smeds; Florian Wolters; Martin Rung
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  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

4.  Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL).

Authors:  M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Sophia E Kramer; Mark A Eckert; Brent Edwards; Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Larry E Humes; Ulrike Lemke; Thomas Lunner; Mohan Matthen; Carol L Mackersie; Graham Naylor; Natalie A Phillips; Michael Richter; Mary Rudner; Mitchell S Sommers; Kelly L Tremblay; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  Systematic review to evaluate the safety, efficacy and economical outcomes of the Vibrant Soundbridge for the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Karl-Ludwig Bruchhage; Anke Leichtle; Rainer Schönweiler; Ingo Todt; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Henning Frenzel; Barbara Wollenberg
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Susan Arndt; Antje Aschendorff; Roland Laszig; Rainer Beck; Christian Schild; Stefanie Kroeger; Gabriele Ihorst; Thomas Wesarg
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Bilateral use of active middle ear implants: speech discrimination results in noise.

Authors:  Astrid Wolf-Magele; Viktor Koci; Johannes Schnabl; Patrick Zorowka; Herbert Riechelmann; Georg Mathias Sprinzl
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling.

Authors:  Thomas Brand; Volker Hohmann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Speech-in-noise and subjective benefit with active middle ear implant omnidirectional and directional microphones: a within-subjects comparison.

Authors:  Mario D Wolframm; Nadia Giarbini; Christian Streitberger
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Anja Kurz; Maren Zanzinger; Rudolf Hagen; Kristen Rak
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.503

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.