Using Microphone Technology to Improve Speech Perception in Noise in Children with Cochlear Implants

Abstract

Background:

Cochlear implant (CI) users are affected more than their normal hearing (NH) peers by the negative consequences of background noise on speech understanding. Research has shown that adult CI users can improve their speech recognition in challenging listening environments by using dual-microphone beamformers, such as adaptive directional microphones (ADMs) and wireless remote microphones (RMs). The suitability of these microphone technologies for use in children with CIs is not well-understood nor widely accepted.

Purpose:

To assess the benefit of ADM or RM technology on speech perception in background noise in children and adolescents with cochlear implants (CIs) with no previous or current use of ADM or RM.

Research Design:

Mixed, repeated measures design.

Study Sample:

Twenty (20) children, ten (10) CI users (mean age 14.3 yrs) who used Advanced Bionics HiRes90K implants with research Naida processors, and ten (10) NH age-matched controls participated in this prospective study.

Intervention:

CI users listened with an ear-canal level microphone, T-Mic (TM), an ADM, and a wireless RM at different audio-mixing ratios. Speech understanding with five microphone settings (TM 100%, ADM, RM + TM 50/50, RM + TM 75/25, RM 100%) was evaluated in quiet and in noise.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Speech perception ability was measured using children’s spondee words to obtain a speech recognition threshold for 80% accuracy (SRT80%) in 20-talker babble where the listener sat in a sound booth 1 m (3.28′) from the target speech (front) and noise (behind) to test five microphone settings (TM 100%, ADM, RM + TM 50/50, RM + TM 75/25, RM 100%). Group performance-intensity functions were computed for each listening condition to show the effects of microphone configuration with respect to signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). A difference score (CI Group minus NH Group) was computed to show the effect of microphone technology at different SNRs relative to NH. Statistical analysis using a repeated-measures analysis of variance evaluated the effects of the microphone configurations on SRT80% and performance at SNRs. Between-groups analysis of variance was used to compare the CI group with the NH group.

Results:

The speech recognition was significantly poorer for children with CI than children with NH in quiet and in noise when using the TM alone. Adding the ADM or RM provided a significant improvement in speech recognition for the CI group over use of the TM alone in noise (mean dB advantage ranged from 5.8 for ADM to 16 for RM100). When children with CI used the RM75 or RM100 in background babble, speech recognition was not statistically different from the group with NH.

Conclusion:

Speech recognition in noise performance improved with the use of ADM and RM100 or RM75 over TM-only for children with CIs. Alhough children with CI remain at a disadvantage as compared with NH children in quiet and more favorable SNRs, microphone technology can enhance performance for some children with CI to match that of NH peers in contexts with negative SNRs.

Key Words

children - cochlear implant - microphone technology - remote microphones

This research was supported by Advanced Bionics, LLC to Patti M. Johnstone.

Portions of this article were presented orally at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Lake Tahoe, CA, 2015; the Conference for the American Cochlear Implant Alliance, Washington DC, 2015; and the 14th International Conference on Cochlear Implants, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2016.

• REFERENCES

• Anderson KL, Goldstein H. 2004; Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 35 (02) 169-184
• Anderson KL, Goldstein H, Colodzin L, Iglehart F. 2005; Benefit of S/N enhancing devices to speech perception of children listening in a typical classroom with hearing aids or a cochlear implant. J Educ Audiol 12: 16-30
• Baker M, Buss E, Jacks A, Taylor C, Leibold LJ. 2014; Children’s perception of speech produced in a two-talker background. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57 (01) 327-337
• Boothroyd A, Inglehart F. 1998; Experiments with classroom FM amplification. Ear Hear 19 (03) 202-217
• Boys Town National Research Hospital 2013. The Situational Hearing Aid Response Profile (SHARP) Version 7. User’s Manual. Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital;
• Buechner A, Dyballa KH, Hehrmann P, Fredelake S, Lenarz T. 2014; Advanced beamformers for cochlear implant users: acute measurement of speech perception in challenging listening conditions. PLoS One 9 (04) e95542
• Crandell CC. 1993; Speech recognition in noise by children with minimal degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 14 (03) 210-216
• Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ. 2000; Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 31 (04) 362-370
• Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE. 2004; Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 25 (03) 230-241
• Dawson PW, Mauger SJ, Hersbach AA. 2011; Clinical evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio-based noise reduction in Nucleus® cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 32 (03) 382-390
• Fabry DA. 1994; Noise reduction with FM systems in FM/EM mode. Ear Hear 15 (01) 82-86
• Finitzo-Hieber T, Tillman TW. 1978; Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 21 (03) 440-458
• Geißler G, Arweiler I, Hehrmann P, Lenarz T, Hamacher V, Büchner A. 2015; Speech reception threshold benefits in cochlear implant users with an adaptive beamformer in real life situations. Cochlear Implants Int 16 (02) 69-76
• Gifford RH, Revit LJ. 2010; 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. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (07) 441-451 , quiz 487–488
• Godar SP, Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Agrawal SS. 2004. In: Miyamoto R. Cochlear Implant Plus Hearing Aid: Measuring Binaural Benefit in Children. International Congress Series. Vol. 1273. Elsevier, 219–222
• Hall 3rd JW, Grose JH, Buss E, Dev MB. 2002; Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children. Ear Hear 23 (02) 159-165
• Hawkins DB. 1984; Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. J Speech Hear Disord 49 (04) 409-418
• James CJ, Blarney PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, Macfarlane D. 2002; Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear 23 (01) (Suppl) 49S-58S
• Johnstone PM, Litovsky RY. 2006; Effect of masker type and age on speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in children and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 120: 2177-2189
• Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. 2002; Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am J Audiol 11 (02) 65-71
• Kolberg ER, Sheffield SW, Davis TJ, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. 2015; Cochlear implant microphone location affects speech recognition in diffuse noise. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (01) 51-58 , quiz 109–110
• Levitt H. 1971; Transformed up-down methods in psychophysics. J Acoust Soc Am 49: 467-477
• Lewis DE. 1994; Assistive devices for classroom listening: FM systems. Am J Audiol 3: 70-83
• Lewis DE. 2008; Trends in classroom amplification. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 35: 122-132
• Lewis DE, Eiten L. 2011. FM systems and communication access for children. In: Seewald R, Tharpe AM. Comprehensive Handbook of Pediatric Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural; 553-564
• Lewis MS, Crandell CC, Valente M, Horn JE. 2004; Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. J Am Acad Audiol 15 (06) 426-439
• Litovsky RY. 2004; Method and system for rapid and reliable testing of speech intelligibility in children. J Acoust Soc Am 115: 2699
• Litovsky RY. 2005; Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children. J Acoust Soc Am 117 (05) 3091-3099
• Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Godar SP. 2006; Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and/or hearing aids in children. Int J Audiol 45 (Suppl 1) S78-S91
• Litovsky RY, Johnstone PM, Godar S, Agrawal S, Parkinson A, Peters R, Lake J. 2006; Bilateral cochlear implants in children: localization acuity measured with minimum audible angle. Ear Hear 27 (01) 43-59
• Litovsky RY, Johnstone P, Parkinson A, Peters R, Lake J. 2004. In: Miyamoto R. Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Children: Effect of Experience. International Congress Series. Vol. 1273. Elsevier, 451–454
• Litovsky RY, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Peters R, Lake J, Johnstone P, Yu G. 2004; Bilateral cochlear implants in adults and children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130 (05) 648-655
• Lyberg Åhlander V, Pelegrín García D, Whitling S, Rydell R, Löfqvist A. 2014; Teachers’ voice use in teaching environments: a field study using ambulatory phonation monitor. J Voice 28 (06) 841.e5-841.e15
• Mauger SJ, Warren CD, Knight MR, Goorevich M, Nel E. 2014; Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ. Int J Audiol 53 (08) 564-576
• McCreery RW, Venediktov RA, Coleman JJ, Leech HM. 2012; An evidence-based systematic review of directional microphones and digital noise reduction hearing aids in school-age children with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 21 (02) 295-312
• Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P. 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Pediatrics 122 (01) e266-e276
• Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
• Norrix LW, Camarota K, Harris FP, Dean J. 2016; The effects of FM and hearing aid microphone settings, FM gain, and ambient noise levels on SNR at the tympanic membrane. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (02) 117-125
• Olsen WO. 1998; Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: a summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol 7 (02) 21-25
• Pearsons KS, Bennett RL, Fidell S. 1977. Speech levels in various noise environments (Report No. EPA-600/1-77-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
• Pittman AL, Hiipakka MM. 2013; Hearing impaired children’s preference for, and performance with, four combinations of directional microphone and digital noise reduction technology. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (09) 832-844
• Plasmans A, Rushbrooke E, Moran M, Spence C, Theuwis L, Zarowski A, Offeciers E, Atkinson B, McGovern J, Dornan D, Leigh J, Kaicer A, Hollow R, Martelli L, Looi V, Nel E, Del Dot J, Cowan R, Mauger SJ. 2016; A multicentre clinical evaluation of paediatric cochlear implant users upgrading to the Nucleus(®) 6 system. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 83: 193-199
• Ricketts TA, Picou EM. 2013; Speech recognition for bilaterally asymmetric and symmetric hearing aid microphone modes in simulated classroom environments. Ear Hear 34 (05) 601-609
• Ricketts TA, Picou EM, Galster J. 2017; Directional microphone hearing aids in school environments: working toward optimization. J Speech Lang Hear Res 60 (01) 263-275
• Ricketts TA, Picou EM, Galster JA, Federman J, Sladen DP. 2010. Potential for directional hearing aid benefit in classrooms: field data. In: Seewald RC, Bamford JM. A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification 2010: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference . Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak AB; 143-152
• Rodemerk KS, Galster JA. 2015; The benefit of remote microphones using four wireless protocols. J Am Acad Audiol 26: 724-731
• Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. 2006; Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol 15 (02) 114-126
• Schmidt P, Morrow SL. 2016; Hoarse with no name: chronic voice problems, policy and music teacher marginalisation. Music Educ Res 18: 109-126
• Smaldino JJ, Crandell CC. 1999; Speech perception in the classroom. Volta Review 101 (05) 15-21
• Stelmachowicz PG, Mace AL, Kopun JG, Carney E. 1993; Long-term and short-term characteristics of speech: implications for hearing aid selection for young children. J Speech Hear Res 36 (03) 609-620
• Titze IR, Hunter EJ. 2015; Comparison of vocal vibration-dose measures for potential-damage risk criteria. J Speech Lang Hear Res 58 (05) 1425-1439
• Vroegop JL, Dingemanse JG, Homans NC, Goedegebure A. 2017; Evaluation of a wireless remote microphone in bimodal cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 56 (09) 643-649 Early Online
• Wolfe J, Duke M, Schafer E, Jones C, Rakita L. 2017; Evaluation of adaptive noise management technologies for school-age children with hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 28 (05) 415-435
• Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E. 2015; Improving hearing performance for cochlear implant recipients with use of a digital, wireless, remote-microphone, audio-streaming accessory. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (06) 532-539
• Wolfe J, Morais M, Schafer E, Agrawal S, Koch D. 2015; Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using adaptive, digital remote microphone technology and a speech enhancement sound processing algorithm. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (05) 502-508
• Wolfe J, Schafer EC, Heldner B, Mülder H, Ward E, Vincent B. 2009; Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (07) 409-421