Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(03): 133-150
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748473
Original Article

Digital Versus Analog Signal Processing: Effect of Directional Microphone

Authors

  • Michael Valente

    Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

  • Robert Sweetow

    Division of Audiology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California

  • Lisa G. Potts

    Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

  • Becky Bingea

    Division of Audiology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Further Information
Also available at
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Differences in performance were evaluated between the Widex Senso C8 (omnidirectional) and C9 (directional) hearing aids and analog hearing aids currently worn by 40 subjects with hearing loss. Subjects were fit with the C8 and C9 using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. Differences in performance between the C8 and C9 and the subjects' own hearing aids were assessed using the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test administered at +7, 0, and -7 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the noise fixed at 65 and 75 dB SPL. Also, a questionnaire was completed assessing differences in preference between the C9 and the subjects' own hearing aids. The major finding was the presence of a significant advantage of the C9 relative to the C8 and the subjects' own hearing aids at each experimental condition. The magnitude of the advantage provided by the C9 increased as the SNR became more difficult. However, significant differences were not present between the C8 and the subjects' own hearing aids at any experimental condition. The questionnaire revealed a statistically significant preference for the C9 in comparison to the subjects' own hearing aids.

Abbreviations: ANSI = American National Standards Institute, BTE = behind the ear, CIC = completely in the canal, DSP = digital signal processing, FBR = front-to-back ratio, HP = high predictability, ITE = in the ear, LP = low predictability, PI = performance intensity, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio, SPIN = Speech Perception in Noise

Key Words

Analog - digital - directional - omnidirectional - Senso - signal-to-noise ratio - Speech Perception in Noise


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2022

© 1999. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • American National Standards Institute. (1989). American National Standard for Specification of Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6–1989). New York: ANSI.
  • Bachler H, Vonlanthen A. (1995). Audio-zoom signal processing for improved communication in noise. Phonak Focus 18:3–18.
  • Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: objective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:808–819.
  • Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeckowski C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27:32–48.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1992). Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear 13:131–141.
  • Frank T, Gooden RG. (1973). The effect of hearing aid microphone types on speech scores in a background of multi-talker noise. Maico Audiol Library Series 11(5): 1–4.
  • Gatehouse S. (1989). Apparent auditory deprivation effects of late onset: the role of presentation level. J Acoust Soc Am 86:2103–2106.
  • Gatehouse S. (1992). The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 92:1258–1268.
  • Gatehouse S. (1993). Role of perceptual acclimatization in the selection of frequency responses for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:296–306.
  • Gravel JS, Fausel N, Liskow C, Chobot J. (1998). Children's speech recognition in noise using dual-microphone hearing aid technology. Ear Hear (in press).
  • Hawkins DB, Yacullo WS. (1984). Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. J Speech Hear Disord 49:278–286.
  • Horwitz AR, Turner CW. (1997). The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 18:1–11.
  • Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliot LL. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61:1337–1351.
  • Kirk RE. (1982). Experimental Design. 2nd Ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  • Leeuw AR, Dreschler WA. (1991). Advantage of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics. Audiology 3:330–344.
  • Lentz WE. (1972). Speech discrimination in the presence of background noise using a hearing aid with a direc-tionally-sensitive microphone. Maico Audiol Library Series 10(9): 1–4.
  • Lurquin P, Rafhay S. (1996). Intelligibility in noise using multi-microphone hearing aids. Acta Otol Rhino Laryngol (Belg) 50:103–109.
  • Madison TK, Hawkins DB. (1983). The signal-to-noise ratio advantage of directional microphones. Hear lustrum, 34(2):18, 49.
  • Mueller HG, Johnson RM. (1979). The effects of various front-to-back ratios on the performance of directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Audiol Soc 5:30–34.
  • Nielson HB. (1973). Acomparison between hearing aids with a directional microphone and hearing aids with a conventional microphone. Scand Audiol 2:45–48.
  • Preves DA, Sammeth SA, Wynn MK. (1997). Field Trial Evaluations of a Switched Directional / Omnidirectional ITE Hearing Instrument. Poster presented at the NIDCD/ VA Hearing Aid Conference, Bethesda, MD, September, 1997.
  • SAS Institute Inc. (1989). SAS I STAT Users Guide Version 6. 4th Ed. Cary, NC: SAS.
  • Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. (1997). Acclimatization to hearing aids. Ear Hear 18:129–139.
  • Studebaker GA. (1985). A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455–462.
  • Studebaker GA, Cox RM, Formby C. (1980). The effect of environment on the directional performance of head-worn hearing aids. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Baltimore: University Park Press, 81–105.
  • Sung GS, Sung RJ, Angelelli RM. (1975). Directional microphone in hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol 101:316–319.
  • Valente Μ, Fabry D, Potts L. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 6:440–449.
  • Valente Μ, Fabry D, Potts L, Sandlin R. (1998). Comparing the performance of the Widex Senso with analog hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 9:342–360.